[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13814-13907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4869]
[[Page 13813]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Parts 206, 642, 643, et al.
High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program,
the Federal TRIO Programs, and Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness
for Undergraduate Program; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 13814]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 206, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, and 694
RIN 1840-AD01
[Docket ID ED-2010-OPE-0002]
High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant
Program, the Federal TRIO Programs, and Gaining Early Awareness and
Readiness for Undergraduate Program
AGENCIES: Office of Postsecondary Education and Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend current regulations, and
establish new regulations, for the High School Equivalency Program and
College Assistance Migrant Program (HEP and CAMP); the Federal TRIO
programs (TRIO Programs--Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs
(Training), Talent Search (TS), Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC),
Upward Bound (UB), Student Support Services (SSS), and the Ronald E.
McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair) Programs; and the Gaining
Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program (GEAR UP)
program.
The purpose of HEP is to help migrant and seasonal farmworkers and
their immediate family members obtain a general educational development
(GED) credential, while CAMP assists students from this background to
complete their first academic year of college and continue in
postsecondary education. The Federal TRIO programs consist of five
postsecondary educational opportunity outreach and support programs
designed to motivate and assist low-income individuals, first-
generation college students, and individuals with disabilities to enter
and complete secondary and postsecondary programs of study and enroll
in graduate programs, and a training program for project staff working
in one or more of the Federal TRIO programs. The purpose of the GEAR UP
program is to increase the number of low-income students who are
prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education.
These proposed regulations are needed to implement provisions of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) by the Higher
Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA) that relate to the HEP and
CAMP, Federal TRIO, and GEAR UP programs.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 22, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only
one time, in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies.
In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on
the site under ``How To Use This Site.''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address
them to Pamela Maimer, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street,
NW., Room 8014, Washington, DC 20006-8014.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments received from
members of the public (including those comments submitted by mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these submissions
available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to include in their comments only
information that they wish to make publicly available on the
Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, Pamela J.
Maimer, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 8014,
Washington, DC 20006-8014. Telephone: (202) 502-7704 or via the
Internet at: [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, call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an
accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to any of the contact persons listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation To Comment
As outlined in the section of this notice entitled Negotiated
Rulemaking, significant public participation, through six public
hearings and three negotiated rulemaking sessions, has occurred in
developing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). In accordance
with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, the
Department invites you to submit comments regarding these proposed
regulations on or before April 22, 2010. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to
identify clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed
regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your
comments in the same order as the proposed regulations.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866, including its overall
requirements to assess both the costs and the benefits of the proposed
regulations and feasible alternatives, and to make a reasoned
determination that the benefits of these proposed regulations justify
their costs. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should
take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the programs.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov.
You may also inspect the comments, in person, in Room 8033, 1990 K
Street, NW., Washington, DC between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to
schedule an appointment
[[Page 13815]]
for this type of aid, please contact one of the persons listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Negotiated Rulemaking
Section 492 of the HEA requires the Secretary, before publishing
any proposed regulations for programs authorized by Title IV of the
HEA, to obtain public involvement in the development of the proposed
regulations. After obtaining advice and recommendations from the
public, including individuals and representatives of groups involved in
the discretionary grant programs authorized under title IV of the HEA,
the Secretary must subject the proposed regulations to a negotiated
rulemaking process. All proposed regulations that the Department
publishes on which the negotiators reached consensus must conform to
final agreements resulting from that process unless the Secretary
reopens the process or provides a written explanation to the
participants stating why the Secretary has decided to depart from the
agreements. Further information on the negotiated rulemaking process
can be found at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html.
On December 31, 2008, the Department published a notice in the
Federal Register (73 FR 80314) announcing our intent to establish five
negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare proposed regulations. One
committee would focus on issues related to lender and general loan
issues (Team I--Loans-Lender General Loan Issues). A second committee
would focus on school-based loan issues (Team II--Loans-School-based
Loan Issues). A third committee would focus on accreditation (Team
III--Accreditation). A fourth committee would focus on discretionary
grants (Team IV--Discretionary Grants). A fifth committee would focus
on general and non-loan programmatic issues (Team V--General and Non-
Loan Programmatic Issues). The notice requested nominations of
individuals for membership on the committees who could represent the
interests of key stakeholder constituencies on each committee.
This NPRM reflects the work of Team IV--Discretionary Grants (Team
IV) which met to develop proposed regulations during the months of
February through April, 2009. This NPRM proposes regulations relating
to the administration of the HEP and CAMP, TRIO, and GEAR UP
discretionary grants programs.
The Department developed a list of proposed regulatory provisions
based on the provisions contained in the HEOA and from advice and
recommendations submitted by individuals and organizations as testimony
to the Department in a series of six public hearings held on--
September 19, 2008, at the Texas Christian University, in
Fort Worth, Texas;
September 29, 2008, at the University of Rhode Island, in
Providence, Rhode Island;
October 2, 2008, at the Pepperdine University, in Malibu,
California;
October 6, 2008, at Johnson C. Smith University, in
Charlotte, North Carolina;
October 8, 2008, at the U.S. Department of Education, in
Washington DC; and
October 15, 2008, at Cuyahoga Community College, in
Warrensville Heights, Ohio.
In addition, the Department accepted written comments on possible
regulatory provisions submitted directly to the Department by
interested parties and organizations. A summary of all comments
received orally and in writing is posted as background material in the
docket for this NPRM. Transcripts of the regional meetings can be
accessed at http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html.
Staff within the Department also identified additional issues for
discussion and negotiation.
At its first meeting, Team IV reached agreement on its protocols.
These protocols provided that for each community of interest identified
as having interests that were significantly affected by the subject
matter of the negotiations, the non-Federal negotiators would represent
the organizations listed after their names in the protocols in the
negotiated rulemaking process.
The Discretionary Grant Team IV Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
included the following members:
Representing the TRIO Programs
David Megquier and Maureen Hoyler (alternate), Council for
Opportunity in Education.
Charlene Manco and Larry Letourneau (alternate), National
Educational Opportunities Association.
Laura Qaissaunee and R. Renee Hampton (alternate),
American Association of Community Colleges.
Jon Westby, Minneapolis Community and Technical College
and Mike Henry, Southwest Virginia Community College (alternate),
representing TRIO two-year institutions.
Deltha Q. Colvin, The Wichita State University and Troy
Johnson, University of North Texas (alternate), representing TRIO four-
year institutions.
Brenda Dann-Messier, Dorcas Place Adult & Family Learning
Center, representing TRIO community organizations.
Representing the GEAR UP Program
Teena L. Olszewski, Northern Arizona University, Allison
G. Jones, The California State University, and Weiya Liang, Washington
Higher Education Coordinating Board (alternate), representing GEAR UP
four-year institutions.
Louis Niro, Cuyahoga Community College, representing GEAR
UP two-year institutions.
Jennifer Martin and Karen McCarthy (alternate), National
Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators.
Linda Shiller, Vermont Student Assistance Corporation
representing GEAR UP State grantees.
Representing the HEP and CAMP Programs
Arturo Martinez and Javier Gonzalez (alternate), The
National HEP/CAMP Association.
Representing Students
Cedric Lawson, United Council of University of Wisconsin,
and Gregory A. Cendana (alternate), United States Student Association.
Representing the Federal Government
Lynn Mahaffie, U.S. Department of Education.
Team IV's protocols also provided that, unless agreed to otherwise,
consensus on all of the amendments in the proposed regulations had to
be achieved for consensus to be reached on the entire NPRM. Consensus
means that there must be no dissent by any member.
During the meetings, Team IV reviewed and discussed drafts of
proposed regulations. At the final meeting in April 2009, the team
reached tentative agreement on the proposed regulations for the HEP,
CAMP and GEAR UP programs as well as on many of the proposed TRIO
program regulations. However, some non-Federal negotiators did not
agree to the Department's proposed regulations relating to the use of
Talent Search grants to pay tuition for students to take courses and
the proposed regulations to implement the new statutory requirement for
a second review of unsuccessful applications for TRIO grants. Because
the committee did not agree on the proposed regulations for the TRIO
programs, Team IV did not reach consensus on the proposed regulations
in this NPRM.
[[Page 13816]]
We propose to accept changes that reflect the tentative agreements
made in the negotiation sessions for the HEP, CAMP, and GEAR UP
programs in their entirety. In the TRIO proposed regulations, we
accepted many of the changes tentatively agreed to in the negotiation
sessions.
More information on the work of Team IV can be found at http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2009/grants.html.
Summary of Proposed Changes
These proposed regulations would implement changes made by the HEOA
to discretionary grant programs authorized by title IV of the HEA,
including:
HEP and CAMP Programs
Expanding eligibility for HEP and CAMP to allow students
to qualify for the program through their own qualifying work, or that
of an immediate family member, rather than only through their own work
or that of a parent, as the statute previously held (see section
418A(b)(B)(i) of the HEA).
Defining the term immediate family member to include only
individuals who are dependent upon a migrant or seasonal farmworker
(see section 418A(b)(B)(i) of the HEA).
Revising the definition of the term seasonal farmworker to
clarify that the individual's primary employment in migrant and
seasonal farmwork must occur for at least 75 days within the past 24
months (see section 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) of the HEA).
Amending the authorized HEP services section to (1)
Provide that permissible HEP services include preparation for college
entrance examinations; (2) provide that permissible HEP services
include all stipends--not only weekly stipends--for HEP participants;
(3) add transportation and child care as examples of essential
supportive services; and (4) specify that HEP services include other
activities to improve persistence and retention in postsecondary
education (see section 418A(b) of the HEA).
Amending the authorized CAMP services section to specify
that (1) Permissible CAMP services include supportive and instructional
services to improve placement, persistence, and retention in
postsecondary education; (2) these supportive services include
personal, academic, career, economic education, or personal finance
counseling as an ongoing part of the program, and (3)permissible CAMP
services include internships (see section 418A(c)(1) of the HEA).
Amending the follow-up CAMP services section to include
(1) referring CAMP students to on-campus or off-campus providers of
counseling services, academic assistance, or financial aid, and
coordinating those services, assistance, and aid with other non-program
services, assistance, and aid, including services, assistance, and aid
provided by community-based organizations, which may include mentoring
and guidance, and (2) for students attending two-year institutions of
higher education, encouraging the students to transfer to four-year
institutions of higher education, where appropriate, and monitoring the
rate of transfer of these students (see section 418A(c)(2) of the HEA).
Amending the minimum allocation for HEP and CAMP grants to
provide that the Secretary must not allocate an amount less than
$180,000 (see section 418A(e) of the HEA).
Adding to the HEP and CAMP program regulations the
criteria the Department considers in evaluating prior experience (see
section 418A(f) of the HEA).
Federal TRIO Programs
The HEOA made a number of significant changes to the Federal TRIO
programs that necessitate changes to the current regulations. The
statutory changes to the TRIO programs include:
Amending or adding definitions for different campus and
different population, which change current regulatory definitions of
these terms for the SSS program and current practice with regard to the
number of applications an eligible entity may submit under each of the
TRIO programs (see section 402A(h)(1) and (h)(2) of the HEA).
Amending the services or activities that projects funded
under the Federal TRIO programs must provide and services or activities
that these projects may provide (see section 402B(b) and (c) (TS);
section 402C(b), (c) and (d) (UB); section 402D(b) and (c) (SSS);
section 402E(b) and (c) (McNair); section 402F(b) (EOC); and section
402G(b) (Training) of the HEA).
Adding new categories of participants (foster care youth
and homeless children and youth) for whom projects funded under these
programs are to provide services (see section 402A(e)(3) of the HEA).
Adding new outcome criteria for most of the TRIO programs
(except for the Training program) which the Secretary must use for
prior experience determinations: TS (see section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the
HEA); UB (see section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA); SSS (see section
402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA); McNair (see section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the
HEA); and EOC (see section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA).
Specifying a new procedure for handling unsuccessful
applications using a two-stage process (see section 402A(c)(8)(C) of
the HEA).
Revising definitions for some terms and adding new
regulatory definitions to implement amendments to the HEA by the HEOA:
Financial and economic literacy (see section 402B(b)(6) of
the HEA (TS), section 402C(b)(6) of the HEA (UB), section 402D(b)(4) of
the HEA (SSS), section 402E(c)(1) of the HEA (McNair)), and section
402F(b)(5) of the HEA (EOC));
Foster care youth and homeless children and youth (see
sections 402A(e)(3), 402B(c)(7) (TS), 402C(d)(7) (UB), 402D(a)(3) and
(c)(6) (SSS), 402F(b)(11) (EOC), and 402G(b)(5) of the HEA (Training)).
Graduate center (see sections 101 and 102 of the HEA and
section 402E(d)(2)of the HEA); groups underrepresented in graduate
school (see section 402E(d)(2) of the HEA); and research and scholarly
activities (see section 402E(b)of the HEA (McNair)).
Individual with disabilities (see sections 402B(c)(7)
(TS), 402C(d)(7) (UB), 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6) (SSS), 402F(b)(11) (EOC),
and 402G(b)(5) of the HEA (Training)).
Individual who has a high risk for academic failure and
veteran who has a high risk for academic failure (see sections
402A(f)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv) and 402C(e)(2) of the HEA).
Institution of higher education (see sections 101 and 102
of the HEA (All Federal TRIO programs)).
Regular secondary school diploma and rigorous secondary
school program of study (see sections 402A(f)(3)(A)(iii) and (iv) and
402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA (TS and UB)).
Veteran (see section 402A(h)(5) of the HEA (TS, EOC, and
UB)).
Additionally, the regulations for the TRIO programs need to be
amended to reflect other changes made by the HEOA, other amendments to
the HEA, and established administrative practices. These changes
include the following:
Amending the project period for the TRIO programs. The
proposed regulations would define the project period as five years for
TS, UB, SSS, McNair, and two years for TRIO Training (see section
402A(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the HEA).
Revising the selection criteria related to ``Objectives''
for the following TRIO pre-college and college programs:
[[Page 13817]]
TS (see section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA); UB (see section
402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA); SSS (see section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA);
McNair (see section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA); and EOC (see section
402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA).
Removing the minimum number of participants in the
regulations for TS, EOC, UB, Upward Bound Math and Science, and
Veterans Upward Bound projects (see sections 402A(f), 402A (b)(3),
402B, 402C, 402F of the HEA). For each grant competition, the
Department will establish minimum numbers of participants to be served
by a grantee through the Federal Register notice inviting application.
Revising sections of the TRIO Training regulations to
reflect current law and practice regarding: (1) The need for the
project selection criteria and the process for ranking applications by
priority; (2) the use of prior experience points in the ranking of
applications for funding; and (3) the number of prior experience points
that can be earned (see section 402G(2) of the HEA).
GEAR UP
Providing that the Secretary award competitive preference
priority points to an eligible applicant for a State GEAR UP grant that
has both carried out a successful State GEAR UP grant prior to August
14, 2008, and prior, demonstrated commitment to early intervention
leading to college access through collaboration and replication of
successful strategies; and specifying how the Department determines
whether a State GEAR UP grant has been ``successful'' (see section
404A(b)(3) of the HEA).
Explaining when a GEAR UP grantee is allowed to provide
services to students attending an institution of higher education (see
section 404A(b)(2) of the HEA).
Requiring grantees that continue to provide services to
students through their first year of attendance at an institution of
higher education, to the extent practicable, to coordinate with other
campus programs in order not to duplicate services (see section
404A(b)(2) of the HEA).
Revising the matching requirement to require that a GEAR
UP grantee make substantial progress towards meeting the matching
percentage stated in its approved application for each year of the
project period. Grantees would no longer be required to meet the
matching requirement each year of the project period (section
404C(b)(1) of the HEA).
Revising the regulations concerning the matching
requirement for Partnerships by: (1) Providing authority for the
Secretary to waive up to 50 to 75 percent of the matching requirement
for up to two years under certain circumstances; and (2) creating a
multiple-tiered system for different types of waiver requests (see
section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA).
Providing for tentative approval of a Partnership
applicant's request for a 50-percent waiver for the entire project
period so that a Partnership applicant that meets the conditions for
such a waiver has an opportunity to apply for a grant without needing
to identify additional sources of match funding in the later years of
the project period (see section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA).
Adding a list of required and allowable activities and
separating these required and allowable activities into multiple
regulatory sections (see section 404D of the HEA).
Specifying that GEAR UP grantees may provide activities
that support participating students to develop graduation and career
plans and that these graduation and career plans may include career
awareness and planning activities as they relate to a rigorous academic
curriculum (see section 404D(b)(5)(D) of the HEA).
Clarifying that GEAR UP funds may be used to support the
costs of administering a scholarship program as well as the costs of
the scholarships themselves (see sections 404E(a)(1) and 404D(b)(7) of
the HEA).
Describing the types of services that a grantee may
provide to students in their first year of attendance at an institution
of higher education and listing examples of these services (see section
404D of the HEA).
Specifying the minimum amount of scholarship funding for
an eligible student, and providing that the State or Partnership
awarding the GEAR UP scholarship may reduce the scholarship amount if
an eligible student who is awarded a GEAR UP scholarship attends an
institution of higher education on a less than full-time basis during
any award year (see section 404E(d) of the HEA).
Incorporating the statutory definition of the term
eligible student (from section 404E(g) of the HEA) in the program
regulations.
Specifying the amount of funds that State grantees that do
not receive a waiver of the requirement that States must expend at
least 50 percent of their GEAR UP funding on scholarships must hold in
reserve for scholarships and how States must use these funds (see
section 404E(e) of the HEA).
Clarifying that scholarships must be made to all students
who are eligible under the definition in Sec. 694.12(b) and that a
grantee may not impose additional eligibility criteria that would have
the effect of limiting or denying a scholarship to an eligible student
(see section 404E(e) and (g) of the HEA).
Requiring States awarding scholarships to provide
information on the eligibility requirements for the scholarships to all
participating students upon the students' entry into the GEAR UP
program (see section 404E(c) of the HEA).
Requiring States to provide scholarship funds to all
eligible students who attend an institution of higher education in the
State, and allowing States to provide these scholarship funds to
eligible students who attend institutions of higher education outside
the State (see section 404E(e) and (g) of the HEA).
Specifying that a State or Partnership may award
continuation scholarships in successive award years to each student who
received an initial scholarship and who is enrolled or accepted for
enrollment in a program of undergraduate instruction at an institution
of higher education (see section 404E of the HEA).
Providing that a GEAR UP Partnership that does not
participate in the GEAR UP scholarship component may provide financial
assistance for postsecondary education using non-Federal funds obtained
to comply with the program's matching requirement (see section 404C(b)
of the HEA).
Specifying the requirements for the return of scholarship
funds. Specifically, (1) Providing that scholarship funds held in
reserve by States under Sec. Sec. 694.12 (b)(1) or 694.12(c) or by
Partnerships under section 404D(b)(7) of the HEA that are not used by
an eligible student within six years of the student's scheduled
completion of secondary school may be redistributed by the grantee to
other eligible students; (2) requiring the return of remaining Federal
funds within 45 days after the six-year period for expending the
scholarship funds expires; (3) requiring grantees to annually furnish
information, as the Secretary may require, on the amount of Federal and
non-Federal funds reserved and held for GEAR UP scholarships and the
disbursement of those funds to eligible students until these funds are
fully expended or returned to the Secretary; and (4) providing that a
scholarship fund under the GEAR UP program is subject to audit or
monitoring by authorized representatives of the Secretary throughout
the life of the fund (see section 404E(e)(4) of the HEA).
Requiring grantees that receive initial grant awards after
the passage of
[[Page 13818]]
the HEOA must continue to serve students from a previous grant received
by the grantee (see sec 404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA).
Clarifying whom a grantee must serve if not all students
in the cohort attend the same school after the cohort completes the
last grade level offered by the school at which the cohort began to
receive GEAR UP services (see section 404B(d) of the HEA).
Specifying that 21st Century Scholarship Certificates are
to be provided by the grantees (rather than by the Secretary to the
grantees), and must indicate the estimated amount.
Significant Proposed Regulations
We group major issues according to subject, with appropriate
sections of the proposed regulations referenced in parentheses.
Part 206--Special Educational Programs for Students Whose Families Are
Engaged in Migrant and Other Seasonal Farmwork--High School Equivalency
Program and College Assistance Migrant Program
HEP and CAMP Eligibility
Statute: Sections 408(1)(A) and 408(2)(A)(i)(I) of the HEOA amend
sections 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) and 418A(c)(1)(A) of the HEA, respectively,
to expand the pool of individuals who may receive HEP and CAMP services
from persons who themselves, or whose parents, have spent a minimum of
75 days during the past 24 months in migrant and seasonal farmwork, to
persons who themselves or whose immediate family have performed such
work. The statute does not define the term ``immediate family.''
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 206.3 specifies who is eligible
to participate in a HEP or CAMP project. It does not reflect the
changes made by the HEOA to the HEP and CAMP eligibility requirements.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise current Sec.
206.3(a)(1) to specify that in order to be eligible to participate in a
HEP or CAMP project a person, or his or her immediate family member,
must have spent a minimum of 75 days during the past 24 months as a
migrant or seasonal farmworker. Current Sec. 206.3(a)(2), regarding
alternative eligibility for HEP and CAMP on the basis of eligibility
under the Migrant Education Program authorized under subpart C of Title
I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (MEP) or the National
Farmworkers Jobs Program authorized in section 167 of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (NFJP), would remain unchanged except for
updating the reference to the MEP regulations to 34 CFR part 200.
We also are proposing to add to the list of definitions in current
Sec. 206.5 (What definitions apply to these programs?) a definition of
the term immediate family member. Specifically, we would redesignate
current Sec. 206.5(c)(5), (c)(6), and (c)(7) as proposed Sec.
206.5(c)(6), (c)(7), and (c)(8), respectively, and then add a new
paragraph (c)(5) to define the term immediate family member as one or
more of the following: a spouse; a parent, step-parent, adoptive
parent, foster parent, or anyone with guardianship; or any person who
(1) claims the individual as a dependent on a Federal income tax return
for either of the previous two years, or (2) resides in the same
household as the individual, supports that individual financially, and
is a relative of that individual.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec. 206.3(a) to
specify that in order to be eligible to participate in a HEP or CAMP
project a person, or his or her immediate family member, must have
spent a minimum of 75 days during the past 24 months as a migrant or
seasonal farmworker. This proposed regulatory change would reflect the
changes made to sections 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) and 418A(c)(1)(A) of the HEA
by sections 408(1)(A) and 408(2)(A)(i)(I) of the HEOA, respectively. We
propose to use the term immediate family member in Sec. 206.3(a),
rather than the statutory term ``immediate family,'' for clarity.
During our negotiated rulemaking sessions, the Department and non-
Federal negotiators agreed that defining the term immediate family
member in these regulations would help ensure consistency in the
application of this term across HEP and CAMP projects. In developing a
proposed definition for this term, the Department considered examples
of similar definitions used by other government programs, as well as
the comments of the non-Federal negotiators and previous discussions
with stakeholders in the HEP and CAMP community. Most importantly, the
Department agreed with the non-Federal negotiators that it is important
to ensure that eligibility for the HEP and CAMP programs extends only
to an individual who is, or is dependent upon, a migrant or seasonal
farmworker, and defined the term immediate family member accordingly.
Finally, we are proposing to revise current Sec. 206.3(a)(2) to
update the regulatory cross-reference regarding the MEP, which appears
in 34 CFR part 200, subpart C, not 34 CFR part 201.
HEP and CAMP Definition of Seasonal Farmworker
Statute: Sections 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) and 418A(c)(1)(A) of the HEA
provide that the services authorized for HEP and CAMP include services
to reach persons who themselves have spent, or whose immediate family
have spent, a minimum of 75 days during the past 24 months in migrant
and seasonal farmwork.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 206.5(c)(7) defines seasonal
farmworker as a person who, within the past 24 months, was employed for
at least 75 days in farmwork, and whose primary employment was in
farmwork on a temporary or seasonal basis (that is, not a constant
year-round activity). This definition does not define when and for how
long the ``primary employment'' must occur.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend newly redesignated
Sec. 206.5(c)(8) (current Sec. 206.5(c)(7)) to clarify that the term
seasonal farmworker means a person whose primary employment was in
farmwork on a temporary or seasonal basis (that is, not a constant
year-round activity) for a period of at least 75 days within the past
24 months.
Reasons: The Department believes that the current definition of
seasonal farmworker should be revised to clarify that the ``primary
employment'' in migrant and seasonal farmwork must occur for at least
75 days within the past 24 months. While this was the intended meaning
of the term in current Sec. 206.5(c)(7), the Department is concerned
that some have interpreted or may interpret the current definition to
require that a seasonal worker not only have been employed for at least
75 days over the past 24 months in farmwork, but that the person's
primary employment over that entire 24 months have been in farmwork.
Because we do not believe this to be required, we propose to clarify
the term seasonal farmworker and to ensure consistency in its
application across HEP and CAMP projects.
Regulations That Apply to HEP and CAMP
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 206.4 lists the regulations that
apply to HEP and CAMP. The list of applicable regulations in this
section was last updated in 1993.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 206.4 to add
four regulations to the list of regulations that apply to HEP and CAMP.
Specifically, we are proposing to (1) add 34 CFR part
[[Page 13819]]
84 (Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial
Assistance)); 34 CFR part 97 (Protection of Human Subjects); 34 CFR
part 98 (Student Rights in Research Experimental Programs, and Testing)
for HEP only; and 34 CFR part 99 (Family Educational Rights and
Privacy) to this list, and (2) redesignate two paragraphs in this
section.
Reasons: We are proposing to add these four regulations to the list
of applicable regulations so that the list of regulations that apply to
HEP and CAMP is complete and accurate. In order to maintain this list
of applicable regulations in numerical order, we propose to redesignate
Sec. 206.4(a)(6) and (a)(7) as Sec. 206.4(a)(7) and Sec.
206.4(a)(8), respectively.
HEP Services
Statute: Section 408(1)(B) through (1)(F) of the HEOA amended
section 418A(b) of the HEA to (1) authorize as a HEP service
preparation for college entrance examinations, and activities beyond
those otherwise identified to improve persistence and retention in
postsecondary education (see sections 418A(b)(3)(B) and 418A(b)(9) of
the HEA, respectively); (2) add transportation and child care as
examples of essential supportive services (see section 418A(b)(8) of
the HEA); and (3) remove the limitation that stipends provided to HEP
participants be ``weekly'' (see section 418A(b)(5) of the HEA).
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 206.10(b)(1) specifies the types
of services that HEP projects may provide. It does not reflect the
changes made to the HEA by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: Consistent with the statutory changes made to
section 418A(b) of the HEA, we are proposing to amend (1) Sec.
206.10(b)(1)(iii)(B) to provide that permissible HEP services include
preparation for college entrance examinations; (2) Sec.
206.10(b)(1)(v) to provide that permissible HEP services include
stipends--not only weekly stipends--for HEP participants; (3) Sec.
206.10(b)(1)(viii) to add transportation and child care as examples of
essential supportive services; and (4) Sec. 206.10(b)(1)(ix) to
specify that HEP services include other activities to improve
persistence and retention in postsecondary education.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec. 206.10(b)(1) to
reflect the changes in the HEP services authorized under the HEA, as
amended by section 408(1) of the HEOA.
CAMP Services
Statute: Section 408(2) of the HEOA amended section 418A(c) of the
HEA to provide that CAMP supportive and instructional services are to
improve placement, persistence, and retention in postsecondary
education (see section 418A(c)(1)(B) of the HEA) and that these
supportive services include, as an ongoing part of the program, not
only personal, academic, and career counseling, but economic education
or personal finance counseling as well (see section 418A(c)(1)(B)(i) of
the HEA). Section 408(2) of the HEOA also amended section 418A(c) of
the HEA to authorize internships as a CAMP service (see section
418A(c)(1)(F) of the HEA), and to provide both that other supportive
services provided as necessary to ensure the success of eligible
students must be ``essential'', and that examples of such essential
supportive services are transportation and child care (see section
418A(c)(1)(G) of the HEA).
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 206.10(b)(2) specifies the types
of services that CAMP projects may provide. It does not reflect the
changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: Consistent with the statutory changes made to
section 418A(c) of the HEA, we are proposing to amend (1) Sec.
206.10(b)(2)(ii) to specify that the permissible CAMP supportive and
instructional services are to improve placement, persistence, and
retention in postsecondary education; and (2) Sec. 206.10(b)(2)(ii)(A)
to specify that these supportive services include, as an ongoing part
of the program, economic education, or personal finance counseling as
well as the previously authorized personal, academic, and career
services. We also propose to redesignate Sec. 206.10(b)(2)(vi) as
Sec. 206.10(b)(2)(vii), and to add a new Sec. 206.10(b)(2)(vi) to
clarify that permissible CAMP services include internships. We propose
to amend newly redesignated Sec. 206.10(b)(2)(vii) to add
transportation and child care as examples of what now must be
``essential'' supportive service.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec. 206.10(b)(2) to
reflect the changes made to permissible CAMP services in section
418A(c) of the HEA by section 408A(2) of the HEOA.
Follow-Up CAMP Services
Statute: Section 408A(2)(B) of the HEOA amended section 418A(c)(2)
of the HEA to provide that in addition to previously authorized
referrals of CAMP students to on- or off-campus providers of counseling
services, academic assistance, or financial aid, follow-up services to
CAMP students may include (1) the coordination of such services,
assistance, and aid with other non-program services, assistance, and
aid, including services, assistance, and aid provided by community-
based organizations, which may include mentoring and guidance; and (2)
for students attending two-year IHEs, encouraging the students to
transfer to four-year IHEs where appropriate, and monitoring the rate
of transfer of these students.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 206.11 specifies the types of
services that CAMP projects must provide. Under current Sec.
206.11(a), CAMP projects must provide ``follow-up services'' for
project participants after they have completed their first year of
college. Current Sec. 206.11(b) provides a list of what ``follow-up
services'' may include.
Proposed Regulations: Consistent with the statutory changes made to
section 418A(c)(2) of the HEA, we are proposing to amend Sec. 206.11
to provide that follow-up CAMP services may include (1) in addition to
the previously authorized referrals of CAMP students to on- or off-
campus providers of counseling services, academic assistance, or
financial aid, the coordination of those services, assistance, and aid
with other non-program services, assistance, and aid, including
services, assistance, and aid provided by community-based
organizations, which may include mentoring and guidance, and (2) for
students attending two-year IHEs, encouraging the students to transfer
to four-year IHEs, where appropriate, and monitoring the rate of
transfer of these students.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec. 206.11 to reflect
the changes made to mandatory CAMP services in section 418A(c)(2)(B)
and (c)(2)(C) of the HEA by section 408A(2)(B) of the HEOA.
Minimum Allocations
Statute: Section 418A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 408A(4)
of the HEOA, increases from $150,000 to $180,000 the minimum amount of
any allocation the Secretary makes for any HEP or CAMP project.
Current Regulations: Consistent with prior law, current Sec.
206.20(b)(2) requires each applicant for a HEP or CAMP award to include
an annual budget of no less than $150,000.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 206.20(b)(2)
to provide that in applying for a HEP or CAMP grant, an applicant's
grant
[[Page 13820]]
application must include an annual budget of not less than $180,000.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec. 206.20(b)(2) to
reflect the changes made to minimum allocations for HEP and CAMP in
section 418A(f) of the HEA by section 408A(4) of the HEOA.
Prior Experience Points for HEP and CAMP Service Delivery
Statute: Section 418A(e) of the HEA, as amended by section 408A(3)
of the HEOA, provides that in making HEP and CAMP grants, the
Department must consider an applicant's prior experience of service
delivery under the particular project for which it seeks further
funding, and must give this prior experience the same level of
consideration it gives to the prior experience of applicants for TRIO
grants.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: The Department is proposing to add a new
Sec. 206.31(a) to provide that in the case of an applicant for a HEP
award, the Secretary considers the applicant's experience in
implementing an expiring HEP project with respect to (1) whether the
applicant served the number of participants described in its approved
application; (2) the extent to which the applicant met or exceeded its
funded objectives with regard to project participants, including the
targeted number and percentage of (i) participants who received a
general educational development (GED) credential; and (ii) GED
credential recipients who were reported as entering postsecondary
education programs, career positions, or the military; and (3) the
extent to which the applicant met the administrative requirements,
including recordkeeping, reporting, and financial accountability under
the terms of the previously funded award.
We also are proposing to add a new Sec. 206.31(b) to provide that
in the case of an applicant for a CAMP award, the Secretary considers
the applicant's experience in implementing an expiring CAMP project
with respect to (1) Whether the applicant served the number of
participants described in its approved application; (2) the extent to
which the applicant met or exceeded its funded objectives with regard
to project participants, including the targeted number and percentage
of participants who (i) successfully completed the first year of
college; and (ii) continued to be enrolled in postsecondary education
after completing their first year of college; and (3) the extent to
which the applicant met the administrative requirements, including
recordkeeping, reporting, and financial accountability under the terms
of the previously funded award.
Reasons: The Department proposes adding to the HEP and CAMP program
regulations the specific criteria we would consider in evaluating prior
experience in order to be consistent with the Department's approach in
TRIO. The criteria for evaluating prior experience that we specify in
proposed Sec. 206.31 is based on the language in previously approved
application packages for HEP and CAMP. The non-Federal negotiators
agreed with this approach and reached tentative agreement on this
issue.
Note: The TRIO programs have had a longstanding requirement that
only applicants with an expiring TRIO project are eligible for the
priority for prior experience. Consequently, in providing the same
degree of consideration for prior experience as provided under the
Federal TRIO programs, we view this aspect of proposed Sec.
206.31(a) to be statutorily required.
Federal TRIO Programs--34 CFR Parts 642 (Training Program for Federal
TRIO Programs), 643 (Talent Search), 644 (Educational Opportunity
Centers), 645 (Upward Bound Program), 646 (Student Support Services
Program), 647 (Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program)
Section 403(a) of the HEOA has amended section 402A of the HEA to
include a number of new requirements that apply across the Federal TRIO
programs (i.e., the Talent Search (TS), Upward Bound (UB), Student
Support Services (SSS), Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement
(McNair), Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC), and Staff Development
Activities (Training) programs). Additionally, section 403(b) through
(g) of the HEOA amended sections 402B, 402C, 402D, 402E, 402F, and
402G, to make specific changes to the TS, UB, SSS, McNair, EOC, and
Training programs, respectively.
Because a number of the statutory changes made to the HEA by the
HEOA affect multiple Federal TRIO programs similarly, we have organized
the discussion of proposed changes to the Federal TRIO program
regulations by first addressing crosscutting issues by subject matter
and then discussing program-specific issues on a program-by-program
basis. We group the crosscutting issues as follows:
Number of Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit to
Serve Different Campuses and Different Populations.
Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO
program.
Evaluating Prior Experience--Outcome Criteria.
Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program
Applicants.
Our discussion of issues applicable to specific programs follows
the order of the Department's regulations for those programs (i.e., 34
CFR parts 642 (Training), 643 (TS), 644 (EOC), 645 (UB), 646 (SSS), and
647 (McNair)).
Number of Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit To Serve Different
Campuses and Different Populations
Statute: Section 402A(c)(5) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(2)(C) of the HEOA, provides that the Secretary may not limit the
number of applications submitted by an eligible entity under any
Federal TRIO program if the additional applications describe programs
serving different populations or different campuses. The HEOA changed
section 402A(c)(5) of the HEA by replacing the term ``campuses'' with
the term ``different campuses''.
More significantly, section 403(a)(6) of the HEOA amended section
402A(h) of the HEA by adding definitions for the terms ``different
campus'' and ``different population''. Section 402A(h)(1) of the HEA
defines the term ``different campus'' as a site of an institution of
higher education that is geographically apart from the main campus, is
permanent in nature, and offers courses in educational programs leading
to a degree, certificate, or other recognized educational credential.
Section 402A(h)(2) of the HEA defines the term ``different
population'' as a group of individuals that an eligible entity desires
to serve using a Federal TRIO grant and that is separate and distinct
from any other population that the entity has applied to serve, or a
population that, while sharing some of the same needs as another
population, has distinct needs for specialized services.
Current Regulations: Only two of the Federal TRIO programs, the UB
and SSS programs, have regulations that address the number of grant
applications an eligible entity may submit.
For the UB program, current Sec. 645.20(a) provides that the
Secretary will accept more than one application from an eligible entity
as long as any additional application describes a project that serves a
different participant population. The current regulations for the UB
program do not define the term ``different participant population''.
For the SSS program, current Sec. 646.10 provides that the
Secretary accepts more than one application from an eligible
[[Page 13821]]
applicant so long as each additional application describes a project
that serves a different campus, or a different population of
participants who cannot readily be served by a single project.
Current Sec. 646.7 defines the terms different campus and
different population of participants for purposes of the SSS program.
Current Sec. 646.7 defines different campus as an institutional site
that is geographically apart from and independent of the main campus of
the institution. The location of an institution is ``independent of the
main campus'' if it is: Permanent in nature; offers courses in
educational programs leading to a degree, certificate, or other
recognized credential; has its own faculty and administrative or
supervisory organization; or has its own budgetary authority. Current
Sec. 646.7 defines different population of participants as a group of
(1) low-income, first-generation college students, or (2) disabled
students.
While the current regulations for the TS, EOC, and UB programs do
not specifically address the number of applications an eligible entity
may submit or define the terms ``different population'' or ``different
campus'', these regulations do provide that the Secretary will consider
the ``target area'' (for the TS, EOC, and UB programs) or ``target
school'' (for the TS and UB programs) proposed to be served by the
project when selecting applications (see current Sec. Sec. 643.21,
644.21, 645.30 and 645.31). Current Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b)
(EOC), and 645.6(b) (UB) generally define the term target area as a
geographic area served by a project. Current Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS)
and 645.6(b) (UB) define the term target school as ``a school
designated by the applicant as a focus of project services''.
Proposed Regulations: To reflect the new statutory definitions for
the terms different campus and different population in section 402A(h)
of the HEA, we are proposing to amend the definitions sections of the
applicable Federal TRIO program regulations to incorporate the
statutory definitions of these terms. Specifically, we propose to add
the definition of different population to current Sec. Sec. 643.7(b)
(TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), and 647.7(b) (McNair). We also
propose to add the definition of different campus to Sec. 647.7
(McNair). For the SSS program, we propose to amend Sec. 646.7 by
revising the definition of the term different campus and by replacing
the definition of the term different population of participants with
the statutory term different population.
To implement section 402A(c)(5) of the HEA, which provides that the
Secretary may not limit the number of applications submitted by an
eligible entity if the additional applications describe programs
serving different populations or different campuses, we propose to
amend each of the Federal TRIO program regulations to clarify when an
eligible applicant may submit more than one application. Specifically:
For the Training program, we propose to add a new Sec. 642.7 to
provide that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application
for a Training grant as long as each application describes a project
that addresses a different absolute priority that is designated in the
Federal Register notice inviting applications.
For the TS program, we propose to add a new Sec. 643.10(a) to
provide that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application
for TS grants as long as each application describes a project that
serves a different target area or target schools, or another designated
different population.
For the EOC program, we propose to add a new Sec. 644.10(a) to
provide that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application
for EOC grants as long as each application describes a project that
serves a different target area or another designated different
population.
For the UB program, we propose to revise Sec. 645.20(a) to provide
that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application as long
as each application describes a project that serves a different target
area or target school or another designated different population.
For the SSS program, we propose to revise Sec. 646.10(a) to
provide that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application
as long as each application describes a project that serves a different
campus or a designated different population.
For the McNair program, we propose to add a new Sec. 647.10(a) to
provide that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application
as long as each application describes a project that serves a different
campus or a designated different population.
In addition, for the TS, EOC, UB, SSS, and McNair programs, we
propose to add regulatory language that provides that, for each
competition, the Secretary designates, in the Federal Register notice
inviting applications and other published application materials for the
competition, the different populations for which an eligible entity may
submit a separate application (see proposed Sec. Sec. 643.10(b),
644.10(b), 645.20(b), 646.10(b), and 647.10(b), respectively).
Reasons: During the negotiated rulemaking sessions, the negotiators
discussed whether the new definitions of the terms different campus and
different population should apply only to the SSS program (where these
terms are currently used) or to all of the Federal TRIO programs. The
current regulations for the Federal TRIO programs are reflect the fact
that the concept of a different campus is only relevant for the SSS and
McNair programs, which serve college students. The TS, EOC, and UB
programs are pre-college programs that do not necessarily target
different campuses. In addition, for the TS, EOC, and UB programs, the
traditional administrative practice has been to focus on different
populations of students by identifying where those students live
(target area) or where they attend school (target schools).
Some non-Federal negotiators recommended that the Department
continue its current practice and only apply the new definitions of
different campus and different population to the SSS program. Other
non-Federal negotiators disagreed, noting that the HEA now allows
applicants applying under both the pre-college programs (TS, EOC, and
UB) and the college programs (SSS and McNair) to submit separate
applications to serve different populations of students. We agree that
the HEA allows applicants under the TS, EOC, UB, SSS and McNair
programs to submit more than one application as long as each
application proposes to serve a different population.
For this reason, we are proposing to amend the regulations for the
TS, EOC, UB, SSS and McNair programs to incorporate the statutorily
defined term different population. We propose to use this term in
conjunction with the terms target area and target school from the
current regulations for TS, EOC, and UB. By clarifying that applicants
can submit more than one application if each application proposes to
serve a ``different target area or target schools or another designated
different population'' and incorporating the statutory definition of
the term different population, we would retain the current practice of
funding separate projects to serve different target areas and target
schools. We would also ensure that the regulations are consistent with
the statutory definition of the term different population in the HEA.
In determining how to reflect the definition for the term different
population in the proposed regulations, we also considered how we would
manage applications proposing to serve different populations. While
grantees must be able to serve more students and to tailor services to
meet the distinct needs of different populations (as
[[Page 13822]]
defined in 402A(h) of the HEA), it is necessary for the Department to
establish some limitations on the number of separate applications an
eligible entity may submit for each competition to serve different
populations. Without such limitations, adding the definition of the
term different population to the regulations could have the unintended
consequence of disproportionately increasing funding at some
institutions, agencies, and organizations that submit several
applications while limiting the funds available to expand program
services to other areas, schools, and institutions. To mitigate this
risk and ensure fairness and consistency in the application process,
the Department proposes to amend the regulations for each of the TRIO
programs. The proposed regulations would provide that the Department
will define, for each competition, the different populations of
participants for which an eligible entity can submit separate
applications in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and
other published application materials for the competition.
This approach would give the Department the flexibility to
designate the different populations for each competition based on
changing national needs. It also would permit the Department to manage
more effectively the program competitions within the available
resources.
For these reasons, under the proposed regulations, an entity
applying for more than one grant under the TS, EOC, and UB programs
would be able to submit separate applications to serve different target
areas and different target schools, and would also be able to submit
separate applications to serve one or more of the different populations
of participants designated in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications. Entities applying for grants under the SSS and McNair
programs would be able to submit separate applications to serve
different campuses and also would be able to submit separate
applications to serve one or more of the different populations of
participants designated in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the competition.
Finally, we are proposing to amend the Training program regulations
by adding a new Sec. 642.7 to provide that an eligible applicant may
submit more than one application for grants as long as each application
describes a project that addresses a different absolute priority. This
proposed change reflects the amendments made by the HEOA as well as the
Department's current practices.
Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO Program (Newly
Redesignated Sec. 642.6 and Sec. Sec. 643.7, 644.7, 645.6, 646.7, and
647.7)
As a result of the changes made by the HEOA to sections 402A, 402B,
402C, 402D, 402E, 402F, and 402G of the HEA, the Department proposes to
add new definitions to the Federal TRIO program regulations and to
revise other definitions in those regulations. We also propose to add
to the TRIO Program regulations certain terms and their definitions
that are in other portions of the HEA and the Department's regulations.
In the following section, we discuss those proposed changes to
definitions used in more than one of the Federal TRIO program
regulations. For proposed changes to definitions that apply to only one
or two programs, we address those proposed changes under the specific
programs.
Disconnected Students
The HEOA amended the HEA to provide that each of the TRIO programs
may provide services to ``disconnected students,'' but the term
``disconnected students'' is never defined in the statute.
``Disconnected students'' is a broad term that could apply to a broad
spectrum of students, and could vary depending on the goals of the
particular project. In these circumstances, we do not believe it is
useful to define the term in these proposed regulations. Instead, we
believe it is more appropriate for an applicant proposing to provide
programs and activities specifically designed for ``disconnected
students'' to define the term for its proposed project and to identify
and describe in its application the specific needs of the
``disconnected students'' to be served by the project.
Different Campus and Different Population
Refer to the discussion of these terms earlier in this preamble,
under the heading Number of Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit
to Serve Different Campuses and Different Populations.
Financial and Economic Literacy
Statute: Section 402 of the HEOA amended the HEA to include
education and counseling services designed to improve the financial and
economic literacy of students as (1) a required service for TS grantees
(see section 402B(b)(6) of the HEA), UB grantees (see section
402C(b)(6) of the HEA), and SSS grantees (see section 402D(b)(4) of the
HEA), and (2) a permissible service for McNair grantees (see section
402E(c)(1) of the HEA) and EOC projects (see section 402F(b)(5) of the
HEA). Section 402A(f)(1) of the HEOA also amended section 402F(a)(3) of
the HEA to provide that a purpose of the EOC program is to improve the
financial and economic literacy of students. The HEA does not define
the term ``financial and economic literacy.''
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to define the term financial and
economic literacy as knowledge about personal financial decision-
making, including but not limited to knowledge about--
(1) Personal and family budget planning;
(2) Understanding credit building principles to meet long-term and
short-term goals (including loan to debt ratio, credit scoring,
negative impacts on credit scores);
(3) Cost planning for secondary education (e.g., spending, saving,
personal budgeting);
(4) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition
vs. fees, personal costs);
(5) Scholarship, grant and loan education (e.g., searches,
application processes, and the differences between private and
government loans); and
(6) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA).
We propose to include this definition in Sec. 643.7 (TS); Sec.
644.7 (EOC); Sec. 645.6 (UB); Sec. 646.7 (SSS); and Sec. 647.7
(McNair).
Reasons: The proposed definition of the term financial and economic
literacy is needed to implement the statutory requirement that TS, EOC,
UB, SSS, and McNair grantees teach and counsel participants and, as
appropriate, their families, about personal financial decision making,
including financial planning for postsecondary education.
Foster Care and Homeless Youth
Statute: Section 403(a)(3)(B) of the HEOA amended section
402A(e)(3) of the HEA by adding the following two groups of students
that grantees are encouraged to serve under the Federal TRIO programs:
foster care youth and homeless children and youth, as defined in
section 725 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Sections
402B(c)(7), 402C(d)(7), 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6), 402F(b)(11), and
402G(b)(5) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, include, among the
permissible services that TRIO projects may provide, programs and
activities that are specifically designed for homeless children and
youth and students who are in foster care or are aging out of the
foster care system.
Current Regulations: None.
[[Page 13823]]
Proposed Regulations: We propose to add definitions of the terms
foster care youth and homeless children and youth to the following
Federal TRIO program regulations: newly redesignated Sec. 642.6
(Training); Sec. 643.7 (TS); Sec. 644.7 (EOC); Sec. 645.6 (UB); and
Sec. 646.7 (SSS). We propose to define foster care youth as youth who
are in foster care or are aging out of the foster care system. For the
definition of homeless children and youth, we propose to add a cross-
reference to the definition of that term in section 725 of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a).
Reasons: The HEOA requires projects funded under the Federal TRIO
programs to make services available to youth in or aging out of foster
care and to homeless children and youth. Providing definitions of the
terms foster care youth and homeless children and youth helps ensure
that these groups are appropriately served under each of the Federal
TRIO programs. The definition of foster care youth is based on the use
of the term in sections 402A(e)(3), 402B(c)(7), 402C(d)(7), 402D(c)(7),
and 402F(b)(11), and 402G(b)(5) of the HEA. Consistent with sections
402A(e)(3), 402B(c)(7), 402C(d)(7), 402D(c)(7), and 402F(b)(11), and
402G(b)(5) of the HEA, the proposed definition of homeless children and
youth would reference the definition in the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a).
We do not propose to include the definitions of foster care youth
and homeless children and youth in the regulations for the McNair
program because section 402E of the HEA, which authorizes the McNair
program, does not include these two terms.
Individual With Disabilities
Statute: Sections 402B(c)(7), 402C(d)(7), 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6),
402F(b)(11), and 402G(b)(5) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, include
among the permissible services that TRIO projects may provide programs
and activities that are specifically designed for students with
disabilities. Other sections of the HEA relating to the TRIO programs
refer to ``individuals with disabilities'' (e.g., 402A(f)(2) and
402D(e)(1)(A), (e)(2), and (e)(3) of the HEA).
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 646.7 (SSS) defines the term
individual with disabilities as a person who has a diagnosed physical
or mental impairment that substantially limits that person's ability to
participate in the educational experiences and opportunities offered by
the grantee institution. None of the Department's current regulations
for the other Federal TRIO programs define the terms individual with
disabilities or students with disabilities.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to use a slightly modified
version of the definition of the term individual with disabilities that
is in current Sec. 646.7 (for the SSS program) for all Federal TRIO
programs, except for the McNair program, which does not use that term.
Under the proposed definition, an individual with disabilities would be
a person who has a diagnosed physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits that person's ability to participate in
educational experiences and opportunities. We would no longer provide
that the impairment must limit the person's ability to participate in
``educational experiences and opportunities offered at the grantee
institution.'' We propose to incorporate this definition in newly
redesignated Sec. 642.6 (Training), Sec. 643.7 (TS), Sec. 644.7
(EOC), Sec. 645.6 (UB), and Sec. 646.7 (SSS).
Proposed Sec. 642.11(b)(5), newly redesignated Sec.
642.24(a)(21), and proposed Sec. Sec. 643.4(b)(7), 644.4(k),
645.12(f), and 646.4(b)(6) would be amended to refer to students or
participants who are individuals with disabilities.
Reasons: For consistency across the Federal TRIO programs, we
propose to use the same definition of the term individual with
disabilities for the Training, TS, EOC, UB, and SSS program
regulations. As noted earlier in this discussion, we are proposing to
use the definition of individual with disabilities from the current SSS
regulations except to drop the phrase ``offered at the grantee
institution'' so that the definition would be applicable to the other
Federal TRIO programs, some of which serve individuals not enrolled at
the grantee institution. This proposed definition would help ensure
that the services and activities that TRIO projects provide for
individuals with disabilities address the educational needs of
individuals with a diagnosed physical or mental impairment so that they
are able to benefit from the educational services provided by the
projects.
Institution of Higher Education
Statute: Sections 101 and 102 of the HEA define the term
institution of higher education.
Current Regulations: The definition of the term institution of
higher education in current Sec. Sec. 642.5(b), 643.7(b), 644.7(b),
645.6(b), 646.7(a), and 647.7(b) refers to sections 481 and 1201(a) of
the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to correct the cross-
references in the definition of the term institution of higher
education to reference the definitions provided in sections 101 and 102
of the HEA (see newly redesignated Sec. 642.6 (Training) and proposed
Sec. Sec. 643.7 (TS), 644.7 (EOC), 645.6 (UB), 646.7 (SSS), and 647.7
(McNair)).
Reasons: To correct obsolete cross-references, we propose to amend
the current regulatory definition of the term institution of higher
education for each of the Federal TRIO program regulations.
Veteran
Statute: Section 403(a)(7)(C)(iii) of the HEOA amended section
402A(h)(5) of the HEA, which defines the term ``veteran eligibility''
for purposes of the Federal TRIO programs. The amended definition of
veteran eligibility provides that veterans of the Armed Forces Reserves
will not be deemed ineligible to participate in the Federal TRIO
programs because of age if they served on active duty for a period of
more than 30 days (see section 402A(h)(5)(C) of the HEA) or in support
of a contingency operation on or after September 11, 2001 (see section
402A(h)(5)(D) of the HEA).
Current Regulations: The term veteran is defined in current
Sec. Sec. 643.7 (TS), 644.7 (EOC), and 645.6 (UB) as a person who
served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the United
States (1) for a period of more than 180 days, any part of which
occurred after January 31, 1955, and who was discharged or released
from active duty under conditions other than dishonorable or (2) after
January 31, 1955, and who was discharged or released from active duty
because of a service-connected disability. This definition was based on
the statutory definition of the term ``veteran eligibility'' prior to
the enactment of the HEOA. The definition is not included in Sec.
642.6 (Training), Sec. 646.7 (SSS), and Sec. 647.7 (McNair).
Proposed Regulations: We propose to replace the current definition
of the term veteran in Sec. Sec. 643.7(b), 644.7(b), and 645.6(b) with
the following definition, which tracks the language in section
402A(h)(5) of the HEA: A veteran means a person who: (a) Served on
active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States for a
period of more than 180 days and was discharged or released under
conditions other than dishonorable; (b) Served on active duty as a
member of the Armed Forces of the United States and was discharged or
released because of a service connected disability; (c) Was a member of
a reserve component of the
[[Page 13824]]
Armed Forces of the United States and was called to active duty for a
period of more than 30 days; or (d) Was a member of a reserve component
of the Armed Forces of the United States who served on active duty in
support of a contingency operation (as that term is defined in section
101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code) on or after September 11,
2001.
Reasons: These changes are made to reflect the changes made to the
definition of the term veteran eligibility in section 402A(h)(5) of the
HEA. This provision only affects TS, EOC, and UB grants that have
otherwise applicable statutory age requirements.
Evaluating Prior Experience--Outcome Criteria
Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the HEA requires the Secretary to
consider, when making Federal TRIO grants, each applicant's prior
experience of high quality service delivery (PE) under the program for
which funds are sought. Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now identifies the specific outcome
criteria to be used to determine an entity's PE under the TS (see
section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA), UB (see section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the
HEA), SSS (see section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA), McNair (see section
402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA), and EOC (see section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the
HEA) programs. These are the same outcome criteria that the Secretary
must use for reporting annually to Congress on the performance of each
of the Federal TRIO programs (see 402A(f)(4) of the HEA). The HEA does
not establish specific outcome criteria for the Training program and
does not specify the distribution of the PE points among the outcome
criteria for any of the Federal TRIO programs.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. Sec. 642.32 (Training), 643.22
(TS), 644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and 647.22 (McNair)
explain how the Secretary evaluates PE and awards PE points to
applicants in grant competitions for each program. These regulations
include the specific criteria (measurements) the Secretary uses to
evaluate an applicant's performance and the maximum number of points
the applicant may earn for each PE criterion.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise the outcome
criteria for awarding PE points in Sec. Sec. 643.22 (TS), 644.22
(EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and 647.22 (McNair)) to incorporate
the statutorily required outcome measures in section 402A(f)(3) of the
HEA, and to distribute the PE points among the new outcome criteria for
these programs.
With regard to the Training program's outcome criteria for awarding
PE points, we are proposing to make minor changes to the outcome
criteria as well as changes to reflect the maximum number of PE points
a Training program grantee may earn. The maximum number of PE points in
the Training program would change from 8 to 15 (see proposed Sec.
642.22(b)(1)).
The following is a list of the proposed outcome criteria for
evaluating PE, organized by regulatory provision, and the point
distribution among the outcome criteria for evaluating PE under each of
the Federal TRIO programs.
Training (Sec. 642.22(e))
Number of participants (4 points).
Training objectives (8 points).
Administrative requirements (3 points).
Talent Search (Sec. 643.22(d))
Number of participants (3 points).
Secondary school persistence (3 points).
Secondary school graduation (regular secondary school diploma) (3
points).
Secondary school graduation (rigorous secondary school program of
study) (1.5 points).
Postsecondary enrollment (3 points).
Postsecondary completion (1.5 points).
Educational Opportunity Centers (Sec. 644.22(d))
Number of participants (3 points).
Secondary school diploma (3 points).
Postsecondary enrollment (6 points).
Financial aid assistance (1.5 points).
College admission assistance (1.5 points).
Upward Bound (Sec. 645.32(e))
Regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science Centers
Number of participants (3 points).
Academic Performance (3 points).
Secondary school retention and graduation (3 points).
Rigorous secondary school program of study (1.5 points).
Postsecondary enrollment (3 points).
Postsecondary completion (1.5 points).
Veterans Upward Bound
Number of participants (3 points).
Academic improvement on standardized test (3 points).
Education program retention and completion (3 points).
Postsecondary enrollment (3 points).
Postsecondary completion (3 points).
Student Support Services (Sec. 646.22(e))
Number of participants (3 points).
Postsecondary retention (4 points).
Good academic standing (4 points).
Degree completion (4 points) (for an applicant institution of
higher education offering primarily a baccalaureate or higher degree)
or
Degree completion and transfer (for an applicant institution of
higher education offering primarily an associate degree) (4 points).
McNair (Sec. 647.22(e))
Number of participants (3 points).
Research and scholarly activities (3 points).
Graduate school enrollment (3 points).
Continued enrollment in graduate school (4 points).
Doctoral degree attainment (2 points).
Under the proposed regulations, we would award PE points for each
outcome criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded
the applicable project objectives. This determination would be based on
the information in the grantee's annual performance report (see
proposed Sec. Sec. 642.22(a)(2) (Training), 643.22(a)(2) (TS),
644.22(a)(2) (EOC), 645.32(a)(2) (UB), 646.22(a)(2) (SSS), and
647.22(a)(2) (McNair)).
Proposed Sec. Sec. 642.22 (Training), 643.22 (TS), 644.22 (EOC),
645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and 647.22 (McNair) also would describe the
process the Secretary uses to award PE points. For example, a grantee
that does not serve at least 90 percent of the approved number of
participants to be served in a given project year would not be eligible
to receive any PE points for that year (see proposed Sec. Sec.
642.22(c) (Training), 643.22(b) (TS), 644.22(b) (EOC), 645.32(b) (UB),
646.22(b) (SSS), and 647.22(b) (McNair)).
Under proposed Sec. Sec. 642.22(d) (Training), 643.22(c) (TS),
644.22(c) (EOC), 645.32(c) (UB), 646.22(c) (SSS), and 647.22(c)
(McNair), a grantee that does not serve its approved number of
participants in a given year would not receive any PE points for the
number of participants criterion for that year.
For any PE outcome criterion that measures the performance of all
participants served in a given project year (e.g., academic improvement
and secondary school retention and graduation for UB), the Secretary
would use the actual number of participants served in a given year or
the approved number of participants to be served, whichever is greater,
as the denominator for calculating whether the applicant has met its
approved objectives (see
[[Page 13825]]
proposed Sec. Sec. 645.32(d), 646.22(d), and 647.22(d)).
For a grantee that served less than the approved number of
participants but at least 90 percent of the approved number to be
served in a given year, the approved number to be served, not the
actual number served, would be used as the denominator in calculating
whether the applicant met its approved objectives (see proposed
Sec. Sec. 645.32(d), 646.22(d), and 647.22(d)).
For any PE outcome criterion related to measuring outcomes based on
a cohort of students (see proposed Sec. Sec. 643.22(d)(3) through
(d)(6); 644.22(d)(3); 645.32(e)(1)(ii) through (e)(1)(vi) and
645.32(e)(2)(iii) through (e)(2)(v); 646.22(e)(2), (4), and (5);
647.22(e)(3) through (e)(5)), the grantee would be required to report
on all the participants in the cohort. To report on these participants,
the grantee would need to track the academic progress of these
participants for the time period specified in the approved objectives.
Consistent with section 402A(f)(1) of the HEA, we are proposing to
specify in Sec. Sec. 643.22(d); 644.22(d); 645.32(e); 646.22(e); and
647.22(e) that the new outcome criteria for evaluating PE would be used
to evaluate the performance of a grantee on any new grant that is
awarded after January 1, 2009. We also propose to modify the PE outcome
criteria to make them consistent across all Federal TRIO programs (see
proposed Sec. Sec. 642.22 (Training), 643.22 (TS), 644.22 (EOC),
645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and 647.22 (McNair)).
Reasons: We are proposing to revise the outcome criteria in
Sec. Sec. 643.22 (TS), 644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and
647.22 (McNair) and to redistribute the 15 PE points among the new
criteria in each of these TRIO programs to reflect the new outcome
criteria in section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5)
of the HEOA.
First, we propose to make technical changes to the PE criteria in
the current regulations so that the criteria align with section
402A(f)(3) of the HEA and are consistent (to the extent possible)
across programs.
Second, we are proposing to change the maximum number of PE points
a Training program grantee may earn from 8 points to 15 points to be
consistent with the maximum PE points for the other Federal TRIO
programs. Section 402A(c)(2) of the HEA provides that the Secretary
must give the PE factor for the TS, UB, SSS, McNair and EOC programs
the same level of consideration given to the PE factor for those
programs during fiscal years 1994 through 1997. The Department's
regulations for the TS, UB, SSS, McNair, and EOC programs already
specify that the maximum number of PE points is 15 and this is the
amount used for the period of time referenced in section 402A(c)(2).
Therefore, the Department believes it is appropriate to use the 15
point maximum for all programs.
We are proposing to provide that PE points be awarded by
determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable project
objectives that have been agreed upon by the grantee and the
Department, to: (1) Be consistent with section 402A(f)(3) of the HEA;
(2) establish clear performance standards; (3) promote accountability;
and (4) reward the performance of a grantee that meets or exceeds its
approved objectives (see proposed Sec. Sec. 642.22 (Training), 643.22
(TS), 644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and 647.22 (McNair)).
To ensure that PE points are awarded only to grantees that have met
high performance standards, we propose to establish an annual
performance threshold that a grantee must meet to receive any PE points
for that year. A grantee that does not serve at least 90 percent of the
approved number of participants to be served in a given year will not
be eligible for any PE points for that year (see proposed Sec. Sec.
642.22(c) (Training), 643.22(b) (TS), 644.22(b) (EOC), 645.32(b) (UB),
646.22(b) (SSS), and 647.22(b) (McNair)).
In addition, we believe that in specifying when the actual number
of participants and when the approved number of participants are used
to calculate a grantee's PE points (as reflected in proposed Sec. Sec.
645.32(d) (UB); Sec. 646.22(d) (SSS); and Sec. 647.22(d) (McNair),
the Department can clearly identify the performance standards and help
to ensure that PE points are awarded in a fair and equitable manner.
These regulatory changes also would help ensure that all grantees are
held to the same high standards and that applicants and grantees
understand these standards.
The new statutorily required PE outcome criteria will be used to
evaluate the performance of a grantee under its expiring grant if that
expiring grant was awarded after January 1, 2009.
In reviewing the PE sections of the current regulations, we noted
some differences in the format and regulatory language used among the
six programs. For consistency and to improve clarity, we propose
standardizing the regulatory language and the format for the PE outcome
criteria (e.g., we propose using the same language to describe the
number of participant criterion and to put this criterion as the first
PE criterion for all programs). We also propose to revise the PE
criteria to clarify how each of the criteria would be measured (e.g.,
for the UB program, we explain that postsecondary enrollment criterion
is measured by the percentage of current and prior-year participants
with an expected high school graduation date in the project year) to
assist applicants in understanding the process so they can set project
objectives that are both ambitious and attainable (see proposed
Sec. Sec. 642.22 (Training), 643.22 (TS), 644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB),
646.22 (SSS), and 647.22 (McNair)).
TRIO Outcome Criteria--Tracking Participants for Talent Search and
Upward Bound Programs
Statute: Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, provides that the outcome criteria for the TS
and UB programs must include, to the extent practicable, the
postsecondary education completion of students served by the TS and UB
programs, respectively.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 643.22 specifies how the
Secretary evaluates PE for the TS program. Current Sec. 645.32
specifies how the Secretary evaluates PE for the UB program. These
provisions do not reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend the regulations to
address the postsecondary education completion of students served. The
proposed regulations would provide that one and one-half PE points
would be awarded for postsecondary completion under the TS program in
proposed Sec. 643.22(d)(6) and under the regular UB and UB Math and
Science Centers programs in proposed Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(vi). Three PE
points will be awarded for postsecondary completion under the Veterans
UB program in proposed Sec. 645.32(e)(2)(v).
For regular UB and Upward Bound Math and Science (UBMS), under
proposed Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(vi), and for Veterans UB, under proposed
Sec. 645.32(e)(2)(v), grantees would be required to track the academic
progress of all project participants that enrolled in postsecondary
education for the number of years specified in the approved objectives
to determine if the applicant met or exceeded its objective regarding
the completion by its students of a program of postsecondary education.
For the TS program, under proposed Sec. 643.22(d)(6), we would
determine whether an applicant met or exceeded its objective regarding
the completion of a program of postsecondary education within the
number of years specified in
[[Page 13826]]
the approved objective by requiring the grantee to track the
postsecondary degree completion of a randomly selected sample of
participants in accordance with parameters established by the Secretary
in the notice inviting applications published in the Federal Register.
TS grantees would not be required to track all project participants
through completion of postsecondary degrees.
Reasons: Section 402A(f)(3)(B)(vii) of the HEA requires that a
grantee, to the extent practicable, report on the postsecondary
completion of project participants. Based on the relatively small
number of students served each year by each UB grantee and the
availability of a variety of databases and other means for tracking a
participant's postsecondary progress, we believe it is practicable for
UB grantees to track participants through completion of a postsecondary
degree.
Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(vi) of the HEA also requires that a grantee,
to the extent practicable, report on the postsecondary completion of
project participants. Unlike UB, however, we do not believe that
tracking all TS project participants through postsecondary completion
is practicable due to the large number of participants in TS grant
projects. Historically, TS projects have served large numbers of
participants and we expect that TS will continue to do so. We believe
it would be very difficult for TS grantees to track all of their
project participants. Therefore, we are proposing to permit TS grantees
to track and report on the postsecondary completion of a randomly
selected sample of project participants. To ensure consistency in the
methodology used among projects to select the sample, we would issue
guidance to TS projects on sample selection.
Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants
Statute: Section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(2) of the HEOA, requires the Department to establish a formal
process for reviewing unsuccessful applications for TRIO program
grants. Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(i) of the HEA provides that with respect
to any competition for a grant under the Federal TRIO program, an
applicant which has otherwise met all of the requirements for
submission of the application may request a review by the Secretary if
the applicant has evidence of a specific technical, administrative, or
scoring error made by the Department, an agent of the Department, or a
peer reviewer, with respect to the scoring or processing of a submitted
application.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(ii) of the HEA provides that in the case of
evidence of a technical or administrative error, the Secretary must
review the evidence and provide a timely response to the applicant. If
the Secretary determines that a technical or administrative error was
made by the Department or an agent of the Department, the application
must be reconsidered in the peer review process for the applicable
grant competition.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iii) of the HEA provides that in the case of
evidence of a scoring error, when the error relates to either the
calculation of PE points or to the calculation of the final score of an
application, the Secretary must review the evidence and provide a
timely response to the applicant. If the Secretary determines that a
scoring error was made by the Department or a peer reviewer, the
Secretary will adjust the PE points or the final score of the
application appropriately and quickly, so as not to interfere with the
timely awarding of grants for the applicable grant competition.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(I) of the HEA states that in the case of
a peer review process error, if the Secretary determines that points
were withheld for criteria not required in a Federal statute,
regulation, guidance governing the Federal TRIO programs, or the
application for a grant from the Federal TRIO programs, or determines
that information pertaining to the selection criteria was wrongly
determined missing from an application by a peer reviewer, then the
Secretary must refer the application to a secondary review panel.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(II) of the HEA provides that the
secondary review panel must conduct its review in a timely fashion, and
the score resulting from the secondary review must replace the score
from the initial peer review.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA states that the secondary
review panel must be composed of reviewers, each of whom: Did not
review the application in the original peer review; is a member of the
cohort of peer reviewers for the grant program that is the subject of
the secondary review; and, to the extent practicable, has conducted
peer reviews in not less than two previous competitions for the grant
program that is the subject of the secondary review.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(IV) of the HEA provides that the final
peer review score of an application subject to a secondary review must
be adjusted appropriately and quickly using the score awarded by the
secondary review panel, so as not to interfere with the timely awarding
of grants.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(V) of the HEA states that to qualify for
a secondary review under section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv) of the HEA, an
applicant must have evidence of a scoring error and must demonstrate
that (1) points were withheld for criteria not required in any statute,
regulation, or guidance governing the Federal TRIO programs or the
application for a grant for these programs; or (2) information
pertaining to the selection criteria was wrongly determined to be
missing from the application.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(v)(I) of the HEA states that a determination
by the Secretary under section 402A(c)(8)(C)(i), (c)(8)(C)(ii), or
(c)(8)(C)(iii) of the HEA is not reviewable by any officer or employee
of the Department.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(v)(II) of the HEA provides that the score
awarded by a secondary review panel under 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv) of the HEA
is not reviewable by any officer or employee of the Department other
than the Secretary.
Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(vi) states that to the extent feasible based
on the availability of appropriations, the Secretary will fund
applications with scores that are adjusted upward under
402A(c)(8)(C)(ii), (c)(8)(C)(iii), or (c)(8)(C)(iv) of the HEA to equal
or exceed the minimum cut off score for the applicable grant
competition.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: The Secretary proposes to add new Sec. Sec.
642.25 (Training); 643.24 (TS); 644.24 (EOC); 645.35 (UB); 646.24
(SSS); and 647.24 (McNair) to implement the new review process for
unsuccessful applicants. Specifically, proposed Sec. Sec. 642.25(a)(1)
(Training); 643.24(a)(1) (TS); 644.24(a)(1) (EOC); 645.35(a)(1) (UB);
646.24(a)(1) (SSS); and 647.24(a)(1) (McNair) would provide that an
applicant whose grant application was not evaluated during a
competition may request that the Secretary review the application if
the applicant had met all of the application submission requirements in
the Federal Register notice inviting applications and the other
published application materials for the competition, and the applicant
provides evidence demonstrating that the Department or an agent of the
Department made a technical or administrative error in the processing
of the submitted application.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 642.25(a)(2) (Training); 643.24(a)(2) (TS);
644.24(a)(2) (EOC); 645.35(a)(2) (UB); 646.24(a)(2) (SSS); and
647.24(a)(2) (McNair) specify what is considered a technical or
[[Page 13827]]
administrative error in the processing of an application.
Proposed 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) would provide that if the Secretary determines
that the Department or the Department's agent made a technical or
administrative error, the Secretary will have the application
reconsidered and scored, and if the total score assigned the
application would have resulted in funding of the application during
the competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary will
fund the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on
the second peer review of applications described in proposed Sec. Sec.
642.25(c) (Training); 643.24(c) (TS); 644.24(c) (EOC); 645.35(c) (UB);
646.24(c) (SSS); and 647.24(c) (McNair).
Proposed Sec. Sec. 642.25(b)(1) (Training); 643.24(b)(1) (TS);
644.24(b)(1) (EOC); 645.35(b)(1) (UB); 646.24(b)(1) (SSS); and
647.24(b)(1) (McNair) would provide that an applicant that was not
selected for funding during a competition may request that the
Secretary conduct a second review of the application if the applicant
provides evidence demonstrating that the Department, an agent of the
Department, or a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error
in the review of its application, and the final score assigned to the
application is within the funding band described in proposed 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).
Proposed Sec. Sec. 642.25(b)(2) (Training); 643.24(b)(2) (TS);
644.24(b)(2) (EOC); 645.35(b) (UB); 646.24(b)(2) (SSS); and
647.24(b)(2) (McNair) would provide that an administrative error that
would require a second review has to be an error that relates to either
the determination of PE points for the application or the determination
of the scores assigned to the application by the peer reviewers. These
regulations specify that an administrative error relating to the
determination of PE points includes (1) mathematical errors made by the
Department or by the Department's agent in the calculation of the PE
points or (2) a failure to correctly add the earned PE points to the
peer review score. An administrative error relating to the
determination of the peer review score would include an error made by
applying the wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.
Proposed 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) would provide that a scoring error would require
a second review if it relates to the peer review process. A scoring
error includes errors caused by a reviewer who, in assigning points (1)
uses criteria not required by the applicable law or regulations, the
Federal Register notice inviting applications, other published
application materials for the competition, or guidance provided to the
peer reviewers by the Secretary, or (2) does not consider relevant
information included in the appropriate section of the application.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 642.25(c) (Training); 643.24(c) (TS); 644.24(c)
(EOC); 645.35(c) (UB); 646.24(c) (SSS); and 647.24(c) (McNair) would
establish the following procedures for the second review of
applications:
(1) After the peer review of applications, the Secretary sets aside
a percentage of the total funds allotted for the competition to be
awarded after the second review is completed and establishes a funding
band. The funding band for each competition includes the applications
with a rank-order score after the first review that is below the lowest
score of applications funded after the first review and that would be
funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the amount of funds that
were set aside for the second review of applications.
(2) The Secretary makes new awards in rank order as described in
proposed Sec. Sec. 642.20 (Training); 643.20 (TS); 644.20 (EOC);
645.30 (UB); 646.20 (SSS); and 647.20 (McNair) based on the available
funds for the competition minus the funds set aside for the second
review.
(3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to
successful applicants after the first review, the Secretary notifies in
writing each unsuccessful applicant whose rank-order score is within
the funding band as to the status of its application and provides the
applicant with copies of the peer reviewers' evaluations of the
applicant's application and the applicant's PE score, if applicable.
(4) An applicant that was not selected for funding during the
competition as described in proposed Sec. Sec. 642.25(c)(2)
(Training); 643.24(c)(2) (TS); 644.24(c)(2) (EOC); 645.35(c)(2) (UB);
646.24(c)(2) (SSS); and 647.24(c)(2) (McNair) and whose application
received a score within the funding band as described in proposed
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), 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.
(5) An applicant whose application was not funded during the
competition as described in proposed Sec. Sec. 642.25(c)(2)
(Training); 643.24(c)(2) (TS); 644.24(c)(2) (EOC); 645.35(c)(2) (UB);
646.24(c)(2) (SSS); and 647.24(c)(2) (McNair) and whose application
received a score within the funding band as described in proposed
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) would have
fifteen (15) calendar days after receiving the written notification
that its application was not funded to submit a written request for a
second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided
in the Secretary's written notification.
(6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be
received by the Department or submitted electronically to a designated
e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established by the
Secretary.
(7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the
Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to PE
points, as described in proposed Sec. Sec. 642.25(b)(2)(i) (Training);
643.24(b)(2)(i) (TS); 644.24(b)(2)(i) (EOC); 645.35(b)(2)(i) (UB);
646.24(b)(2)(i) (SSS); and 647.24(b)(2)(i) (McNair), the Secretary
adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct number of PE
points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application would have
resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the
program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior
to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of
applications described in proposed Sec. Sec. 642.25(c)(9) (Training);
643.24(c)(9) (TS); 644.24(c)(9) (EOC); 645.35(c)(9) (UB); 646.24(c)(9)
(SSS); and 647.24(c)(9) (McNair).
(8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the
Department's agent or a peer reviewer made an administrative error that
relates to the peer review score, as described in proposed Sec. Sec.
642.25(b)(2)(ii) (Training); 643.24(b)(2)(ii) (TS); 644.24(b)(2)(ii)
(EOC); 645.35(b)(2)(ii) (UB); 646.24(b)(2)(ii) (SSS); and
647.24(b)(2)(ii) (McNair), the Secretary would adjust the applicant's
peer review score to correct the error. If the adjusted score assigned
to the application would have resulted in funding of the application
during the competition and the program has funds available, the
Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of applications
based on the second peer
[[Page 13828]]
review of applications described in proposed Sec. Sec. 642.25(c)(9)
(Training); 643.24(c)(9) (TS); 644.24(c)(9) (EOC); 645.35(c)(9) (UB);
646.24(c)(9) (SSS); and 647.24(c)(9) (McNair).
(9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring
error, the Secretary would convene a second panel of peer reviewers in
accordance with section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
(10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer
review would be used in the second ranking of applications. The average
score obtained from the second peer review panel would be the final
peer review score for the application and will be used even if it is a
lower score than the score in the initial review).
(11) The Secretary would fund applications in the funding band in
rank order based on any adjusted scores and the amount of funds that
have been set aside for the second review of applications.
Proposed 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) would
provide that (1) for each competition, the Secretary would establish a
funding band for the second review of applications; (2) the Secretary
would establish the funding band for each competition based on the
amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second review of
applications; (3) the funding band would include those applications
with a rank-order score before the second review that is below the
lowest score of applications funded after the first review and that
would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the amount of funds
that were set aside for the second review of applications for the
competition.
Proposed 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) would
provide that: (1) the Secretary's determination of whether the
applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the
Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application would be final and
not subject to further appeal or challenge; and (2) an application that
scored below the established funding band for the competition would not
be eligible for any further review.
Reasons: Section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(2) of the HEOA, requires the Department to establish a formal
process for reviewing unsuccessful grant applications in the TRIO
programs. Proposed Sec. Sec. 642.25 (Training), 643.24 (TS), 644.24
(EOC), 645.35 (UB), 646.24 (SSS), and 647.24 (McNair) would implement
this requirement and ensure that the review process is clear,
understandable, and transparent.
We are proposing the funding band approach to the review process to
ensure that we can meet our fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers
to manage the grant programs based on the appropriated resources
available at the time of each competition. This approach would also
minimize the impact of the second review on our ability to provide
timely notice of grant awards.
We believe that the process we are proposing will provide fair,
equitable, specific, clear, and understandable procedures for
applicants to be notified about the status of their application,
eligibility for a second review, how to request a second review, and
other information regarding a second review.
We decided to propose a funding band and determined the specific
parameters for the funding band based on the Department's experience
and historical information. In past competitions, adjustments for
administrative and scoring errors have increased scores no more than
two or three points; therefore, the funding band has been designed to
include only those applications that would have a reasonable chance of
being funded if the second review of the application results in an
adjustment to the score. By selecting only those applications most
likely to have a chance of being funded after a second review, we would
be better able to effectively manage the grant competition and make
timely funding decisions to ensure that the funds for the competition
are obligated within the fiscal year.
One of the non-Federal negotiators objected to the Department's
proposal to set aside a small portion of the appropriation for the
second review. This negotiator stated that the Department should commit
the full amount of appropriated funds for the program prior to the
second review of applications and then request that Congress
appropriate additional funds in the current or next fiscal year to
support any applications that score in the funding range following the
second review. This negotiator objected to the fact that the
Department's proposal to re-rank applications in the funding band after
the second review might result in an application that would have been
funded if there was not a second review process not being funded after
the second review. To avoid creating a contentious situation, the
negotiator recommended that any application that received a second
review and whose new score would have resulted in funding during the
competition should only be funded if the Congress provided additional
funds for the program. The negotiator asserted that this approach would
be consistent with the HEA, as amended by the HEOA.
We do not agree with this recommendation. Congress specifically
chose to require the Secretary to develop a review process for
unsuccessful applications. In doing so, Congress clearly intended that
applicants whose scores increased to within the funding range should be
funded. Otherwise, the review process would provide no significant
benefit to an applicant whose scores were increased since there would
be no assurance of increased funding from Congress. Furthermore, we
have a fiduciary responsibility to manage the grant competitions using
the limited funds appropriated by Congress for the competition year.
The Department cannot incur costs or make financial commitments from
potential subsequent appropriations.
Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs, 34 CFR Part 642
Project Period (Proposed Sec. 642.4)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(2)(B) of the HEA provides that Training
program grants must be awarded for a period of two years.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to add Sec. 642.4 to
provide that a project period under the Training program is two years.
Reasons: We are proposing to add Sec. 642.4 to the Training
program regulations to be consistent with section 402A(b)(2)(B) of the
HEA.
Applicable Regulations (Current Sec. 642.4, Proposed Sec. 642.5)
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 642.4 contains an outdated list
of applicable regulations.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the list of
regulations that apply to the Training program. We also propose to
exclude section 34 CFR 75.215 through 75.221 from the list of
regulations that apply.
Reasons: We are proposing these changes so that the list of
regulations that apply to the program is comprehensive and accurate. We
are proposing to exclude the regulations in 34 CFR 75.215 to 75.221
that include general rules for handling applications and specific rules
for handling applications that are not funded through a regular
competition. The proposed new rules governing the process for a
[[Page 13829]]
second review of unsuccessful TRIO applications would make the process
outlined in these regulations unnecessary.
Definitions (Current Sec. 642.5, Proposed Sec. 642.6)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for the proposed regulations with regard to
the definitions of foster care youth, homeless children and youth,
individual with disabilities, institution of higher education, and
veteran in the Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO
Program section of the preamble.
Number of Applications (Proposed Sec. 642.7)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes regarding the number of
applications an eligible entity may submit to apply for a grant under
the Training program in the Number of Applications an Eligible Entity
May Submit to Serve Different Campuses and Different Populations
section of the preamble.
Required and Permissible Services
Statute: Section 402G(b) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(g)
of the HEOA, expands the types of training that grantees are required
to provide under the Training program.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 642.10 specifies the types of
training that a grantee is required to provide and the types of
training that a grantee is permitted to provide under the Training
program.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 642.11 would identify the
training that Training program grantees must provide and would reflect
the training requirements in section 402G(b)(5) of the HEA, as amended
by section 403(g) of the HEOA. Specifically, in proposed Sec. 642.11,
we would add the following to the list of topics that Training program
grantees must provide for new project directors: (1) The use of
appropriate educational technology in the operation of projects funded
under the Federal TRIO programs; and (2) 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 with
disabilities, students who are homeless children and youths, students
who are foster care youth, or other disconnected students.
Proposed Sec. 642.12 would describe the types of training that
Training program grantees may provide. This section would include all
permissible Training program services listed under current Sec. 642.10
and add the following two services to that list: On-site training and
on-line training.
Reasons: Currently we address both required and permissible
training that Training program grantees provide in Sec. 642.10. We
propose to describe the required training and permissible training in
two separate regulations for greater clarity. We are also proposing to
modify the regulations to reflect the changes in required and
permissible training made by section 403(g) of the HEOA.
We also propose to add on-site and on-line training as permissible
activities to reflect our current administrative practice and recognize
current educational practices.
Ranking Applications by Priority (Current Sec. 642.30, Proposed Sec.
642.20(c) and (d))
Statute: Section 402A(c)(3) exempts the Training program from the
requirement that the Secretary must award Federal TRIO program grants
in the order of the scores received by applications in the peer review
process and adjusted for PE.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 642.30 does not address how the
Secretary ranks applications for the Training program grants.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to redesignate current Sec.
642.30 as Sec. 642.20 and modify it to allow in proposed Sec.
642.20(c) the Secretary to select Training program applications for
funding by absolute priority in rank order on the basis of the average
peer review score. Under proposed Sec. 642.20(d), for each absolute
priority, if there are insufficient funds to fund all applications at a
particular peer review score, we will add each application's PE score
to its peer review score to determine an adjusted total score for each
application. Under this proposed regulation, for applications with the
same peer review score at the funding cut-off level, we would then use
the adjusted total score to determine which of the tied applicants will
receive funding. If a tie score still exists, the Secretary would
select for funding the applicant that has the greatest capacity to
provide training to eligible participants in all regions of the nation.
Reasons: We are proposing Sec. 642.20 to reflect the Department's
current practice and provide a specific, understandable, and fair
method for funding new awards under the Training program. Specifically,
we are proposing to establish regulations to fund applications by
absolute priority to ensure that one or more training grants will be
funded under each published priority. In addition, in proposed Sec.
642.20 we would specify how we would handle a tie score.
Evaluation of an Application for a New Award (Current Sec. Sec. 642.30
and 642.31, Proposed Sec. Sec. 642.20 and 642.21)
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 642.30(a)(1) provides that, in
evaluating applications for Training program grants, the Secretary
awards up to 100 points based on the selection criteria in Sec.
642.31. Section 642.31(f) specifies a selection criterion worth 25
points that requires an applicant to show the need for its proposed
Training program project.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. Sec. 642.20 and 642.21 would
change the total number of points that may be awarded in a Training
program competition to 75 instead of 100 points. Specifically, we are
proposing to remove the selection criteria in current Sec. 642.31(f),
which is worth 25 points.
Reasons: Current Sec. 642.31(f) provides that we award up to 25
points to an applicant that shows a need for its Training program
project. However, every applicant is required to address one of the
absolute priorities established in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the competition. With the absolute priorities, the
Department establishes the need for the proposed training. Thus, a
selection criterion that requires an applicant to show the need for its
proposed training is no longer necessary.
Prior Experience (Current Sec. 642.32, Proposed Sec. 642.22)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes regarding PE for the Training
program in the Evaluating Prior Experience--Outcome Criteria section of
the preamble.
Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants (Sec.
642.25)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for adding new Sec. 642.25 in the Review
Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants section of the
preamble.
Amount of a Grant (Sec. 642.26)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(3) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1)(C) of the HEOA, sets the minimum Training grant amount at
$170,000.
[[Page 13830]]
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the regulations to
add a new section that explains how the Secretary sets the amount of a
grant. This section will specify that the Secretary uses the available
funds to set the amount of the grant at the lesser of $170,000 or the
amount requested by the applicant.
Reasons: We are proposing this change to reflect the change to
section 402A(b)(3) of the HEA by the HEOA.
Talent Search (TS) Program, 34 CFR Part 643
Sections 403(a) and (b) of the HEOA amended sections 402A and 402B
of the HEA.
Changes to the Purpose of Talent Search (Sec. 643.1)
Statute: Section 403(b) of the HEOA amended Section 402B of the HEA
to reflect changes to the purposes of the TS program.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 643.1 does not reflect the
changes made to the purposes of the TS program by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend Sec. 643.1 to provide
that one of the purposes of the TS program is to have grantees
publicize the availability of, and facilitate the application for,
student financial assistance and to encourage persons who have not
completed secondary or postsecondary education to enter, or reenter,
and complete such programs.
Reasons: The proposed amendment would conform current Sec. 643.1
to the changes made to section 402B of the HEA, by the HEOA.
Applicant Eligibility (Sec. 643.2)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the HEOA, lists the types of entities that are
eligible for TS grants. Prior to enactment of the HEOA, a secondary
school could apply for a TS grant under ``exceptional circumstances.''
The HEOA eliminates this restriction on the eligibility of a secondary
school. Further, the HEOA modified the definition of the public and
private agencies and organizations that are eligible for grants to
include community-based organizations with experience in serving
disadvantaged youth.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 643.2 specifies who is eligible
to apply for a TS grant. This provision does not reflect the changes
made by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 643.2 to
reflect the statutory changes to the rules on applicant eligibility.
Under the revised regulations, a secondary school would be eligible to
apply for a TS grant without having to demonstrate ``exceptional
circumstances.'' In addition, a community-based organization with
experience in serving disadvantaged youth may apply for a TS grant.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec. 643.2 to reflect
the changes made to the applicant eligibility provisions for the TS
program in section 402A(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA.
Participant Eligibility (Sec. 643.3)
Statute: Section 403(b)(1)(B) of the HEOA amended section
402B(a)(3) of the HEA by deleting the requirement that a participant
must have the ability to complete a program of secondary or
postsecondary education.
Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, includes a new outcome criterion for TS that
requires projects to report on participants who complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study. The statute does not specify
eligibility criteria for participants enrolled in a rigorous secondary
school program of study.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 643.3(a)(3)(i) requires that a
participant in a TS program have potential for a program of
postsecondary education. Current Sec. 643.3(a)(3)(ii) requires that a
participant have the ability to complete a program of postsecondary
education. The current regulations do not include eligibility
requirements for participants receiving support to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the TS participant
eligibility regulations in Sec. 643.3(a)(3)(i) by removing the
requirement that a participant have the potential for a program of
postsecondary education. We are also proposing to amend Sec.
643.3(a)(3)(ii) by removing the requirement that a participant who has
undertaken, but is not presently enrolled in, a program of
postsecondary education have the ability to complete such a program.
We are proposing to add participant eligibility requirements for TS
participants who receive support from a TS grantee to complete a
rigorous secondary school program of study. Those participants must be
accepted into the TS program by the end of the first term of the tenth
grade, be enrolled in or be preparing to enroll in a rigorous secondary
school program of study as defined by his or her State of residence,
and be designated as enrolled in a rigorous secondary school program of
study on the grantee's reports to the Secretary.
Reasons: To reflect the changes made to section 402B(a)(3) of the
HEA and in response to comments made by the non-Federal negotiators
during the negotiated rulemaking sessions, we are proposing: (1) To
remove the current regulatory language that requires potential
participants who have not entered into postsecondary education to have
potential for a program of postsecondary education; and (2) to remove
regulatory language that requires potential participants who have
previously dropped out of postsecondary education to have the ability
to complete such a program.
We are also proposing to add eligibility requirements for
participants receiving support to complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study to help ensure that they receive sufficient services
from the TS project to achieve at the level needed to be eligible for
grants under the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) program. This
change would be consistent with the new HEOA outcome criteria in
section 402A(f)(3)(A)(4) of the HEA for the TS program, which measures
the extent to which project participants complete a rigorous secondary
school program of study that would make these students eligible for
programs such as the ACG program.
Required and Permissible Services (Sec. 643.4)
Statute: The HEA lists certain services or activities that projects
funded under the TS program must provide and services or activities
that these projects may provide. Section 403(b) and (c) of the HEOA
amended section 402B(b) and (c) of the HEA relating to required and
permissible services or activities for TS program grantees.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 643.4 specifies what services a
TS project may provide. This provision does not reflect the changes
made by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 643.4 to
revise the list of required and permissible services or activities to
be provided by projects funded under the TS program to reflect changes
made by the HEOA. The proposed regulations would list the services or
activities that projects must provide and the services or activities
that projects may provide.
We are proposing to amend the TS program regulations to require
that projects provide the following services: (1) Connecting
participants to high
[[Page 13831]]
quality academic tutoring services to enable participants to complete
secondary or postsecondary courses; (2) providing advice and assistance
to participants in secondary school course selection and, if
applicable, initial postsecondary course selection; (3) providing
assistance to participants in preparing for college entrance
examinations and completing college admission applications; (4)
providing (i) information on the full range of Federal student
financial aid programs and benefits (including Federal Pell Grant
awards and loan forgiveness) and resources for locating public and
private scholarships and (ii) assistance in completing financial aid
applications, including the Free Application for Federal Student Aid;
(5) providing participants with guidance on and assistance in secondary
school reentry, alternative education programs for secondary school
dropouts that lead to the receipt of a regular secondary school
diploma, entry into general educational development (GED) programs, or
entry into postsecondary education; and (6) connecting participants to
education or counseling services designed to improve the financial
literacy and economic literacy of participants or the participants'
parents, including financial planning for postsecondary education.
We are proposing to specify that the following are permissible
services for TS projects: (1) Academic tutoring, which may include
instruction in reading, writing, study skills, mathematics, science,
and other subjects; (2) personal and career counseling or activities;
(3) information and activities designed to acquaint youth with the
range of career options available to them; (4) exposure to the campuses
of institutions of higher education, as well as cultural events,
academic programs, and other sites or activities not usually available
to disadvantaged youth; (5) workshops and counseling for families of
participants served; (6) mentoring programs involving elementary or
secondary school teachers or counselors, faculty members at
institutions of higher education, students, or any combination of these
persons; and (7) the programs and activities described in items (1)
through (6) that are specially designed for participants who are
limited English proficient, from groups that are traditionally
underrepresented in postsecondary education, individuals with
disabilities, homeless children and youths, foster care youth, or other
disconnected participants.
Reasons: The proposed amendments would conform the regulations to
the statutory amendments made by the HEOA to section 402B of the HEA.
Prior to enactment of the HEOA projects funded under the TS program
could choose from a number of permissible activities and services to
provide participants. Section 403(b) of the HEOA amended section 402B
of the HEA to require grantees to provide certain services and give
grantees the option of providing other services. The proposed
amendments reflect these statutory changes.
Project Period (Sec. 643.5)
Statute: Prior to enactment of the HEOA, TS grants were generally
awarded for four years. Grantees whose peer-review scores were in the
highest ten percent of the scores of all applicants, received five year
grants. The HEOA amended the HEA so that all TS grants are for five
years.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 643.5 specifies the length of a
TS project period. This provision does not reflect the changes made by
the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the regulations to
define the project period as five years for all grantees.
Reasons: The change is made to conform the regulations to section
402A(b)(2) of the HEA.
Applicable Regulations (Sec. 643.6)
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Section 643.6 contains an outdated list of
applicable regulations.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to update the list of
regulations that apply to the TS program. We also propose to exclude 34
CFR 75.215 through 221 from the list of regulations that apply.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for the proposed amendments in the
discussion of Applicable Regulations for the Training Program for
Federal TRIO Programs section of this preamble (current Sec. 642.4,
proposed Sec. 642.5).
Definitions (Sec. 643.7)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to the definitions of institution
of higher education and veteran and for the addition of different
population, financial and economic literacy, foster care youth,
homeless children and youth, and individual with disabilities in the
Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO Program section of
the preamble. We are also proposing to define two additional terms
applicable to the TS program in these regulations: regular secondary
school diploma and rigorous secondary school program of study.
Regular Secondary School Diploma
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iii) of the HEA was amended by
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA to include a new outcome criterion for TS
that requires grantees to report on the graduation of participants who
complete secondary school with a regular secondary school diploma in
the standard number of years.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 643.7(b) to
define regular secondary school diploma to mean a level attained by
individuals who meet or exceed the coursework and performance standards
for high school completion established by the individual's State.
Reasons: We are proposing the addition of the definition of regular
secondary school diploma to ensure that there is a clear and consistent
understanding of the term in the TS program.
Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the HEA, as amended by
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, includes a new outcome criterion for TS
that requires projects to report on participants who complete a
rigorous secondary school program of study. The term rigorous secondary
school program of study is not defined in the statute.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 643.7(b) to
include a definition of rigorous secondary school program of study. The
proposed regulations would define rigorous secondary school program of
study to mean a program of study that is--
(1) Established by a State educational agency (SEA) or local
educational agency (LEA) and recognized as a rigorous secondary school
program of study by the Secretary through the process described in 34
CFR Sec. 691.16(a) through Sec. 691.16(c) for the ACG Program;
(2) An advanced or honors secondary school program established by
States and in existence for the 2004-2005 school year or later school
years;
(3) Any secondary school program in which a student successfully
completes at a minimum the following courses:
(i) Four years of English.
(ii) Three years of mathematics, including algebra I and a higher-
level
[[Page 13832]]
class such as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and statistics.
(iii) Three years of science, including one year each of at least
two of the following courses: biology, chemistry, and physics.
(iv) Three years of social studies.
(v) One year of a language other than English;
(4) A secondary school program identified by a State-level
partnership that is recognized by the State Scholars Initiative of the
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), Boulder,
Colorado;
(5) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at
least two courses from an International Baccalaureate Diploma Program
sponsored by the International Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland, and receives a score of a ``4'' or higher on the
examinations for at least two of those courses; or
(6) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at
least two Advanced Placement courses and receives a score of ``3'' or
higher on the College Board's Advanced Placement Program Exams for at
least two of those courses.
Reasons: We are proposing the addition of a definition of rigorous
secondary school program of study to ensure a clear and consistent
understanding of the term for the TS program and with other Department
programs.
Number of Applications (Sec. 643.10)
We discuss the statutory authority, proposed regulations, and
reasons for adding new Sec. 643.10, Number of applications, in the
Number of Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit to Serve Different
Campuses and Different Populations section of the preamble.
Assurances (Current Sec. 643.10; Proposed Sec. 643.11)
Statute: Section 402B(d)(1) of the HEA requires that, as part of
its application, a TS grantee provide an assurance that two-thirds of
the participants it will serve in its project will be low-income
individuals who are first generation college students. Section
402B(d)(3) of the HEA requires that a TS grantees provide an assurance
that individuals participating in the project will not have access to
services from another TS grantee or an EOC project.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 643.10 specifies what assurances
an applicant must include in an application. This provision does not
reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to re-number the regulations
establishing the required assurances as Sec. 643.11 and to amend
paragraph (a) to require that a TS grantee provide an assurance that at
least two-thirds of the subset of participants selected for the
rigorous academic component of the grant project will be low-income
individuals who are potential first-generation college students.
We are also proposing to amend paragraph (b) to require TS grantees
to provide an assurance that they will not provide the same services to
participants as projects funded by programs serving similar
populations, such as GEAR UP, UB, UBMS, or EOC.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend the TS project assurances to
reflect the requirements of section 402B(d) of the HEA. Specifically,
we are proposing to modify the regulations to require that at least
two-thirds of the participants selected for the rigorous secondary
school program of study component of the project must be low-income
individuals who are potential first-generation college students. This
assurance would require projects, in selecting participants for the
rigorous secondary school program of study component, to apply the
statutory requirement that at least two-thirds of the project
participants be both low-income individuals and potential first-
generation college students to ensure an equitable and appropriate
approach to participant selection.
We are also proposing to amend the TS project assurances to require
a grantee to provide an assurance that it will not provide the same
services to participants that they would receive under other programs
serving similar populations, such as GEAR UP, UB, UBMS, or EOC to avoid
the duplication of services between a TS project and similar projects.
Making New Grants (Sec. 643.20)
Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the HEA requires the Secretary to
consider, when making Federal TRIO grants, each applicant's prior
experience (PE) of high quality service delivery under the program for
which funds are sought. Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now identifies the specific outcome
criteria to be used to determine an entity's PE under the TS (see
section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA). The HEA does not establish specific
procedures for awarding PE points.
The HEA, as amended, no longer includes provisions for awarding
additional points to an application for a project in designated
territories of the United States.
Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the Secretary had the discretion to
decide whether or not to consider an application from an applicant that
carried out a project involving the fraudulent use of program funds.
The HEOA amended the HEA to eliminate that discretion and prohibit the
Secretary from considering an application from such a party.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 643.20 specifies the procedures
the Secretary uses to award new grants.
Proposed Regulations: We propose that the Secretary evaluate the PE
of an applicant for each of three project years, as designated by the
Secretary in the Federal Register notice inviting applications. We also
propose that the Secretary may award an applicant up to 15 PE points
for each of the three years for which the annual performance report was
submitted. The average of the scores for the three project years would
be the final PE score for the applicant.
We also propose to remove Sec. 643.20(a)(3) and to amend the
wording in Sec. 643.20(d) to specify that the Secretary will not make
a new grant to an applicant if the applicant's prior project involved
the fraudulent use of program funds.
Reasons: To provide more transparency in the process the Secretary
will use to award PE points, we are proposing to amend Sec.
643.20(a)(2). We also are proposing to remove Sec. 643.20(a)(3)
because there is no longer any statutory authority for this provision.
We also are proposing to amend Sec. 643.20(d) to reflect the statutory
change that provides that the Secretary may not consider an application
from an applicant that carried out a project involving the fraudulent
use of program funds.
Selection Criteria (Sec. 643.21)
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, requires the Secretary to use specific outcome
criteria to measure the performance of Federal TRIO grants, including
those under the TS program. Specifically, pursuant to section
402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA, the Secretary must measure the performance of
TS grants by examining the extent to which the entity met or exceeded
the entity's objectives (as established in the entity's approved
application) regarding--
(1) Delivery of service to a total number of students served by the
program;
(2) Continued secondary school enrollment of such students;
[[Page 13833]]
(3) Graduation of such students from secondary school with a
regular secondary school diploma in the standard number of years;
(4) Completion by such students of a rigorous secondary school
program of study that will make such students eligible for grants under
programs such as the ACG program;
(5) Enrollment of such students in an institution of higher
education; and
(6) To the extent practicable, the postsecondary education
completion of such students.
These statutory changes necessitate changes in the grant selection
criteria regarding ``Need for the project'' (Sec. 643.21(a)),
``Objectives'' (Sec. 643.21(b)), and ``Plan of operation'' (Sec.
643.21(c)).
Further, section 403(a) of the HEOA amended section 402A of the HEA
to eliminate the provision that limited secondary school eligibility
for the TS program to exceptional circumstances.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 643.21 specifies the selection
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a TS grant.
This provision does not reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA
applicable to the following selection criteria: Need for the project
(Sec. 643.21(a)); Objectives (Sec. 643.21(b)); Plan of operation
(Sec. 643.21(c)); and Applicant and community support (Sec.
643.21(d)).
Proposed Regulations (Need for the project): We are proposing to
amend Sec. 643.21(a) to provide that when evaluating an application
for a new grant the Secretary will evaluate the need for the proposed
project. To evaluate the need for the project, we would distribute 24
points in the following manner:
(1) Six points for a high number or high percentage of (a) low-
income families residing in the target area, or (b) students attending
the target schools who are eligible for free or reduced priced lunch,
as described in sections 9(b)(1) and 17(c)(4) of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act.
(2) Two points for low rates of high school persistence among
individuals in the target schools, as evidenced by the annual student
persistence rates in the proposed target schools for the most recent
year for which data are available.
(3) Four points for low rates of students in the target school's
graduating high school with a regular secondary school diploma in the
standard number of years for the most recent year for which data are
available.
(4) Six points for low postsecondary enrollment and completion
rates among individuals in the target area and schools, as evidenced by
(a) low rates of enrollment in programs of postsecondary education by
graduates of the target schools in the most recent year for which data
are available, and (b) a high number or high percentage of individuals
residing in the target area with education completion levels below the
baccalaureate degree level.
(5) Two points for the extent to which the target secondary schools
do not offer their students the courses or academic support to complete
a rigorous secondary school program of study or have low participation
by low-income or first generation students in such courses.
(6) Four points for other indicators of need for a TS project,
including a high ratio of students to school counselors in the target
schools and the presence of unaddressed academic or socio-economic
problems of eligible individuals, including foster care youth and
homeless children and youth, in the target schools or the target area.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec. 643.21(a) (Need for the
project) to reflect the changes made to section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the
HEA by section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA regarding the outcome criteria to
be used to measure the performance of TS program grantees. We are
proposing to modify the need for the TS project selection criteria
because we believe that the revised criteria would be consistent with
the purpose and goals of the TS program, as reflected in the outcome
criteria established by Congress. In the application, the applicant
would document the extent of the need for the proposed TS project in
the proposed target area and would provide baseline data for the new
outcome criteria that the applicant would use to establish project
objectives that are ambitious and attainable.
In addition, based on concerns expressed by some non-Federal
negotiators during the negotiated rulemaking sessions regarding the
availability of reliable data from the target schools for purposes of
calculating some of the need criteria, the proposed regulations would
give applicants options for providing the number or percentage of low-
income individuals in the proposed target area. To meet this
requirement the applicant may provide data on either the number or the
percentage of low-income families residing in the target area or the
number or percentage of students attending the target schools who are
eligible for free or reduced priced lunch. Further, to reduce burden,
an applicant would only need to provide data on high school
persistence, graduation, and postsecondary enrollment for the most
recent year for which data are available; current regulations require
data for the three most recent years.
The proposed regulations would also address a concern some non-
Federal negotiators raised about the current requirement that an
applicant provide data to show a high student dropout rate in the
proposed target schools in the preceding three years. These non-Federal
negotiators expressed concern that this provision could penalize
applicants with existing projects that serve target schools that have
already improved their dropout rates. We are not proposing to remove
the dropout rate from the criteria. However, in light of the new
statutory outcome criteria related to the ``continued secondary school
enrollment of participants,'' we have also included a criterion that
requires the applicant to provide data on the annual high school
persistence rates of students in the proposed target schools.
Proposed Regulations (Objectives): We are proposing to amend Sec.
643.21(b) to provide that, in evaluating applications for TS grants,
the Secretary consider the quality of the applicant's proposed
objectives on the basis of the extent to which they are both ambitious
and attainable, given the project's plan of operation, budget, and
other resources. We propose to distribute eight points for this
criterion in the following manner:
(1) Two points for secondary school persistence.
(2) Two points for secondary school graduation (regular secondary
school diploma).
(3) One point for secondary school graduation (rigorous secondary
school program of study).
(4) Two points for postsecondary education enrollment.
(5) One point for postsecondary degree attainment.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec. 643.21(b) (Objectives) to
reflect the changes made to section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA by section
403(a)(5) of the HEOA regarding the outcome criteria to be used to
measure performance of the TS program. We are proposing to reflect the
statutory TS outcome criteria in Sec. 643.21(b) as selection criteria
because we believe that the focus at the outset of the TS discretionary
grant process (i.e., evaluating applications using TS selection
criteria) should be on the ultimate outcomes the TS program is intended
to attain.
Moreover, during the grant period, section 402A(f)(4) of the HEA
requires that the Secretary measure the performance of the grantee
based on a comparison of the targets agreed upon for the outcome
criteria established in
[[Page 13834]]
the applicant's approved application to the actual results achieved
during the grant period. For these reasons, we believe it is
appropriate to use the outcome criteria from section 402A(f)(3)(A) of
the HEA in the selection criteria for the TS program.
Outcome criteria are also used to evaluate an applicant's PE and to
assign PE points to an application. We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed regulations, and reasons for changes to
evaluating an applicant's PE in the Evaluating Prior Experience--
Outcome Criteria section of the preamble.
Proposed Regulations (Plan of operation): We are proposing to amend
Sec. 643.21(c) to provide that the Secretary, in evaluating an
application for a TS grant, evaluate the quality of the applicant's
proposed plan of operation as one of the selection criteria. We would
distribute thirty points for this criteria in the following manner:
(1) Three points for the plan to inform the residents, schools, and
community organizations in the target area of the purpose, objectives,
and services of the project and the eligibility requirements for
participation in the project.
(2) Three points for the plan to identify and select eligible
project participants, including the project's plan and criteria for
selecting individuals who would receive support to complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
(3) Ten points for the plan for providing the services delineated
in Sec. 643.4 as appropriate based on the project's assessment of each
participant's need for services.
(4) Six points for the plan to provide services to students in need
of services to complete a rigorous secondary school program of study.
(5) Six points for the plan to ensure the proper and efficient
administration of the project, including timelines, personnel, and
other resources, and the project's organizational structure; the time
commitment of key project staff; financial, personnel, and records
management; and, where appropriate, coordination with other programs
for disadvantaged youth.
(6) Two points for the plan to follow former participants as they
enter, continue in, and complete postsecondary education.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec. 643.21(c) (Plan of
operation) to reflect the changes made to section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the
HEA by section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA regarding the outcome criteria to
be used to measure performance of the TS program. We are proposing to
include the revised TS plan of operation criteria in Sec. 643.21(c) as
a selection criteria because the revised criteria would be consistent
with the purpose and goals of the TS program outcome criteria. The
requested information would document the project's plans with regard to
the criteria relating to a rigorous secondary school program of study
and for following the academic progress of former participants through
postsecondary education.
Proposed Regulations (Applicant and community support): We are
proposing to amend Sec. 643.21(d) to require written commitments from
institutions of higher education, in addition to the current
requirement for written commitments from schools and community
organizations, to provide resources to supplement the grant and enhance
project services.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec. 643.21(d) (Applicant and
community support) to reflect the changes made to section 402A(b)(1) of
the HEA by section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, which eliminated the
limitation on the eligibility of secondary schools for TS grants. We
agreed with some of the non-Federal members of the negotiated
rulemaking committee who expressed concern that the current selection
criterion that requires applicants to have written commitments from
schools, community organization, and others may provide an advantage to
secondary schools or community organization applicants for TS grants
over institutions of higher education. Without a change, institutions
of higher education applying for a TS grant would have to get letters
of commitment from their potential competitors for grants while
secondary schools and community organizations would not have a similar
requirement. To ensure a fair and equitable competition and to ensure
that schools and community organizations have the full scope of
partners necessary to provide appropriate services, we would require
those applicants to get letters of commitment from institutions of
higher education.
Prior Experience Criteria (Sec. 643.22)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to the PE criteria in the
Evaluating Prior Experience--Outcome Criteria section of the preamble.
Amount of a Grant (Sec. 643.23)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1) of the HEOA, increased the minimum TS grant from $180,000 to
$200,000.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 643.23 specifies how the
Secretary sets the amount of a TS grant. This provision does not
reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the regulations to
update the statutory minimum grant amount.
Reasons: We are proposing this change to reflect the changes to
section 402A(b)(3) of the HEA by section 403(a)(3) of the HEOA.
Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants (New
Sec. 643.24)
We discuss the statutory authority, proposed regulations, and
reasons for adding new Sec. 643.24 in the Review Process for
Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Applicants section of the preamble.
Allowable and Unallowable Costs (Sec. Sec. 643.30 and 643.31)
Transportation, Equipment and Supplies, and Tuition
Statute: Section 403A(b) of the HEOA amended section 403B(b) of the
HEA and expanded the list of services a TS grantee may provide to
include instruction in reading, writing, study skills, mathematics,
science, and other subjects. Section 403A(b) of the HEOA amended
sections 402A and 402B of the HEA and included outcome criteria to
evaluate the quality and effectiveness of TS projects. The new outcome
criteria require that TS projects report data on the graduation of
participants from secondary school with a regular high school diploma
in the standard number of years, the completion by participants of a
rigorous secondary school program of study that would make them
eligible for grants under the ACG program, and the completion by
participants of postsecondary education.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 643.30 permits a TS project to
use grant funds to pay certain costs. Current Sec. 643.30(a) permits a
grantee to pay some participant transportation costs. Current Sec.
643.30(f) requires a grantee to obtain approval from the Department to
purchase computers and other equipment. Current Sec. 643.31(a)
prohibits the payment of tuition for participants.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 643.30(a)(4)
to permit a TS grantee, under certain circumstances, to pay the
transportation costs for a participant receiving instruction that is
part of a rigorous secondary school program of study. We also are
proposing to revise Sec. 643.30 (f) and add paragraph (g) to allow
grantees to use grant funds for the purchase,
[[Page 13835]]
lease, or rental of computer hardware that supports the delivery of
services to participants, including technology used by participants in
a rigorous secondary school program of study, and for project
administration and recordkeeping.
We are proposing to add paragraph (h) to Sec. 643.30 to permit a
TS grantee to pay tuition, under certain circumstances, for a
participant to take a course that is part of a rigorous secondary
school program of study. Specifically, we propose to allow TS funds to
be used to pay tuition costs for a course that is part of a rigorous
secondary school program of study if--
(1) The course or a similar course is not offered at the secondary
school that the participant attends or at another school within the
participant's school district;
(2) The grantee demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction that
using grant funds to pay for tuition is the most cost-effective way to
deliver the course or courses necessary for the completion of a
rigorous secondary school program of study for program participants;
(3) The course is taken at an institution of higher education;
(4) The course is comparable in content and rigor to courses that
are part of a rigorous secondary school program of study as defined in
Sec. 643.7(b);
(5) The secondary school accepts the course as meeting one or more
of the course requirements for obtaining a high school diploma;
(6) A waiver of the tuition costs is unavailable;
(7) The tuition is paid with TS grant funds to an institution of
higher education on behalf of a participant; and
(8) The TS project pays for no more than the equivalent of two
courses for a participant each school year.
We also propose to drop ``tuition'' from the list of unallowable
costs in Sec. 643.31(a).
During the negotiated rulemaking sessions, many of the non-Federal
negotiators noted that they had data to demonstrate that participants
in TS projects needed tuition support to complete a rigorous program of
study. In light of these statements we are seeking public comments and
data on the need to permit TS projects to pay tuition for participants
to take courses that are part of a rigorous secondary school program of
study. We are requesting data on the availability of rigorous
coursework offerings at target schools or in target areas, which may
include, but are not limited to: The number of schools or districts
within the State that do not provide rigorous curricula; the number of
students who do not have access to the rigorous coursework or do not
take rigorous courses available to them; and student demographic data
on rigorous course-taking patterns in the target schools or areas.
We are also requesting information on how the lack of access to
rigorous programs has impacted the educational opportunities available
to individuals served by TS projects. We are also requesting cost
estimates, based on existing TS projects, as to the amount and
percentage of the project budget that might be used for tuition, if
allowable, and the estimated number of participants that might benefit
each year from this service. We may reexamine the need for or scope of
this proposal based on the comments and data that we receive.
Reasons: Based on comments and information we received during the
negotiated rulemaking sessions we believe that it is appropriate for
grantees to use TS funds to pay for computer equipment and software.
Authorizing this use of funds will permit grantees to deliver services
more efficiently. We believe that prior approval for these expenditures
is no longer necessary. With the new statutory outcome criterion
related to a rigorous course of study, a TS project also may need to
rent, lease, or purchase technology used by participants in a rigorous
academic program.
Some non-Federal negotiators recommended revisions to the TS
regulations to allow grantees to pay transportation and tuition costs
for participants who are trying to complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study when the course or courses are not offered at the
secondary school the participant attends or at another school within
the school district.
A number of legal and policy concerns were discussed regarding this
provision. A significant policy concern discussed was whether TS is the
appropriate mechanism for addressing the lack of rigorous courses in
some secondary schools given other new Federal initiatives and funding
to help all school districts provide a rigorous program of study. Also
of concern was the potential cost of this provision and whether this
would result in TS projects being able to serve fewer students.
At the final negotiated rulemaking session, the Department noted
that we could consider authorizing the use of funds to pay tuition, but
that we needed more data on the issue before we would consider
including this authority in the regulations. We pointed out the Federal
policy goal that every secondary school should offer a rigorous program
of study to its students. We also noted that other Federal programs
support the establishment of rigorous programs of study. Accordingly,
we were not convinced that the limited TS funds should be used for this
purpose. The non-Federal negotiators disagreed, stating that it is
unreasonable to measure the performance of a TS grantee on the extent
to which participants complete a rigorous secondary school program of
study if a grantee cannot use project funds to support this activity.
The non-Federal negotiators also provided examples of areas and target
schools served by TS projects that lack courses needed to meet the
State standards for a rigorous secondary school program of study. If TS
projects serving these areas could not provide participants with access
to these courses, the non-Federal negotiators opined, some TS
participants would be denied the opportunity to qualify for ACG funds.
They also noted that research has shown that students who take rigorous
coursework in high school are more likely to enter and complete
postsecondary education.
After further consideration, we understand that the availability of
rigorous coursework may be an issue in some schools and communities
served by TS projects and, thus, we have reconsidered our position on
this issue. We propose to include, under certain conditions, the
payment of tuition for courses that would allow project participants to
complete a rigorous secondary school program of study. Providing
opportunities for high school students to complete a rigorous secondary
school program of study is important to ensuring opportunity and
success in postsecondary education.
Nonetheless, we need data to understand the extent to which areas
and schools served by TS projects lack rigorous coursework. Further, we
need data to perform cost-benefit analyses that help us determine
whether to permit the use of limited TS grant funds for this purpose.
We cannot base policy decisions on the appropriate use of limited
program funds on anecdotal evidence. The TS program has a national
scope, and we must consider the cost implications of this proposal. The
use of TS funds for tuition and other related costs would reduce the
availability of funding for other program services and would reduce the
number of participants that could be served by a TS project.
Additionally, as the Department seeks improvements in education, we
need to ensure that Federal programs are used in a coordinated way to
leverage educational reform and opportunities that would benefit all
students. Therefore, we are
[[Page 13836]]
requesting that commenters provide us with information and data
regarding the tuition provisions in these proposed regulations.
To ensure that TS funds are only used to pay tuition in exceptional
situations, the proposed regulations would permit the payment of
tuition for courses that are part of a rigorous secondary school
program of study only if the: course to be taken by the participant or
a similar course is not offered in the school district; the participant
takes the course at an institution of higher education; the course is
comparable in rigor to courses that are part of the State's rigorous
secondary school program of study; and the course is accepted by the
participant's secondary school as meeting one or more of the course
requirements for a high school diploma. We would also require an
applicant proposing to use TS funds for tuition to provide detailed
information in their application on the appropriateness and cost
effectiveness of using the TS funds for this purpose.
What Other Requirements Must a Grantee Meet? (Sec. 643.32)
Changes to Number of Participants (643.32(b))
Statute: Section 402A(b)(3) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA,
establishes a minimum grant of $200,000 for TS. The HEA does not
specify the number of participants a project must serve.
Current Regulations: Section 643.32(b) requires a TS project to
serve a minimum of 600 participants; the Secretary may reduce this
number if the amount of the grant for the budget period is less than
$180,000, which was the minimum TS grant amount prior to the HEOA
amendments.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 643.32(b) to
remove the current requirement that a TS grantee serve a specific
minimum number of participants and to redesignate the paragraphs that
follow.
Reasons: We are proposing to remove the minimum number of
participants from regulations so the Department has flexibility in each
competition to establish the number of participants, and to adjust
these numbers in subsequent competitions based on experience, cost
analyses, and other factors.
The Department is committed to encouraging TS grantees to identify
and adopt the most cost-effective strategies for disadvantaged youth to
complete secondary school programs, enroll in or reenter education
programs at the postsecondary level, and complete postsecondary
education programs. The Department intends to design future TS grant
competitions to achieve this objective. Future grant competition
notices will set parameters that are consistent with the statute to
encourage adoption of cost effective practices using the best available
evidence. This may include setting a minimum number of program
participants for each competition to promote adoption of cost-effective
practices.
We intend to stipulate the minimum and maximum grant award amounts
and to address the number of participants a TS project will be expected
to serve each year of the grant cycle through the Federal Register
notice inviting applications for the competition. We also intend to
establish a per-participant cost in the Federal Register notice to be
used to determine the amount of the grant for an applicant proposing to
serve fewer participants than required for the minimum grant award for
the competition.
Changes to Recordkeeping Requirements (Sec. 643.32(b))
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the HEA, as amended by
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, includes a new outcome criterion for TS
that requires projects to report on participants who complete a
rigorous secondary school program of study.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 643.32(c) specifies the
recordkeeping requirements for TS grantees. This provision does not
reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the goals and services of the
TS program.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to redesignate current
paragraph (c) as (b) and to amend newly redesignated Sec. 643.32(b) to
include new recordkeeping requirements for TS program participants in a
rigorous secondary school program of study.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend the recordkeeping requirements
to reflect the changes made to the TS program by the HEOA. The proposed
change to the regulations is also consistent with the recommendation of
the non-Federal negotiators during the negotiated rulemaking sessions
to require a grantee to keep a list of courses taken by participants
who are enrolled in a rigorous secondary school program of study. This
change would ensure that a TS project grantee maintain the
documentation needed to determine that participants in a rigorous
secondary school program of study have taken the courses needed to
qualify for ACG grants, as required by section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the
HEA.
Changes to Full-Time Director Requirement (Sec. 643.32(d))
Statute: Section 402A(c)(6) of the HEA requires that the Secretary
permit the Director of a Federal TRIO program to administer one or more
additional programs for disadvantaged students.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 643.32(d) requires a grantee to
employ a full-time project director unless the grantee requests a
waiver.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 643.32(d) to
amend the provision that required a grantee to have a full time Project
Director unless the project met certain conditions and requested a
waiver. Specifically, under the proposed regulations, a waiver would
not be required for a Director who is less than full-time on the
project if the Director is also administering one or two additional
programs for disadvantaged students. A grantee would have to request a
waiver of the full-time director requirement for the Director to
administer more than three programs.
Reasons: The proposed regulations would be consistent with section
402A(c)(6) of the HEA. In addition, the change would reduce the
administrative burden on grantees by eliminating the requirement that a
grantee request a waiver of the full-time director requirement under
certain circumstances.
Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC), 34 CFR Part 644
Changes to the EOC Program Purpose (Sec. 644.1)
Statute: Section 403(f)(1)(C) of the HEOA amended section 402F(a)
of the HEA and modified the purposes of the EOC program.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 644.1 specifies the purpose of
the EOC program. This provision does not reflect the changes made by
the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend Sec. 644.1 by adding a
new paragraph (c) containing the following text: ``To improve the
financial literacy and economic literacy of participants on topics such
as basic personal income, household money management, and financial
planning skills and basic economic decision-making skills.''
Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec. 644.1 to reflect
the changes made by the HEOA to the EOC program authority statement in
section 402F(a) of the HEA.
Applicant Eligibility (Sec. 644.2)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by section
[[Page 13837]]
403(a)(1)(A) of the HEOA lists the types of entities that are eligible
for EOC grants. Prior to enactment of the HEOA, a secondary school
could apply for an EOC grant under ``exceptional circumstances.'' The
HEOA eliminates this limitation on the eligibility of a secondary
school. Further, the HEOA defines public and private agencies and
organizations that may apply for a grant to include community-based
organizations with experience in serving disadvantaged youth.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 644.2 specifies who is eligible
to apply for an EOC grant. This provision does not reflect the changes
made to applicant eligibility by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 644.2 to
conform to the statutory changes to applicant eligibility. Under the
proposed regulations, a secondary school would be able to apply for an
EOC grant without having to demonstrate ``exceptional circumstances.''
In addition, a community-based organization with experience in serving
disadvantaged youth may apply for a grant.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec. 644.2 to conform
to the changes made by the HEOA in applicant eligibility in section
402A(b)(1) of the HEA.
Required and Permissible Services (Sec. 644.4)
Statute: Section 403(f)(2) of the HEOA amended section 402F(b) of
the HEA, which defines the permissible services or activities in the
EOC program. As amended, the HEA lists certain services or activities
that projects funded under the program may provide.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 644.4 specifies what services an
EOC project may provide. This provision does not reflect the changes
made by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 644.4 and add
to the permissible services that projects may provide under the EOC
program in accordance with the changes made by the HEOA. Specifically,
we propose to remove personal counseling services from the list of
permissible services and replace it with individualized personal,
career, and academic counseling services. We are also proposing to
specify that permissible services includes programs and activities
described in Sec. 644.4 that are specially designed for participants
who are limited English proficient, participants from groups that are
traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education, participants
who are individuals with disabilities, participants who are homeless
children and youth, participants who are foster care youth, or other
disconnected participants. Finally, we are proposing to add education
or counseling services designed to improve the financial literacy and
economic literacy of participants to the list of permissible services
for EOC projects.
Reasons: The proposed regulations would amend Sec. 644.4 to revise
the list of services that EOC projects are allowed to provide to
conform with section 402F(b) of the HEA.
Project Period (Sec. 644.5)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1)(B)(i) of the HEOA, provides that all EOC grants are for five
years. Prior to enactment of the HEOA, EOC grants were awarded for four
years, except for applicants whose peer review scores were in the
highest 10 percent of the scores of all applicants; those applicants
received five-year grants.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 644.5 specifies the length of an
EOC project period. This provision does not reflect the change made by
the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise the regulations to
define the project period under the EOC program as five years for all
grantees.
Reasons: The change is made to conform Sec. 644.5 with section
402A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA.
Applicable Regulations (Sec. 644.6)
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Section 644.6 specifies which regulations
apply to the EOC program. This provision contains an outdated list of
applicable regulations.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to update the list of
regulations that apply to the EOC program. We also propose excluding
Sec. Sec. 75.215 through 75.221 from the list of regulations that
apply.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for the changes in the Applicable
Regulations for the Training program section of the preamble.
Definitions (Sec. 644.7)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to the definitions of institution
of higher education and veteran and for the addition of definitions of
different population, financial and economic literacy, foster care
youth, homeless children and youth, and individual with disabilities in
the Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO Program
section of the preamble.
Number of Applications (New Sec. 644.10)
We discuss the statutory authority, proposed regulations, and
reasons for adding new Sec. 644.10, Number of applications, in the
Number of Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit to Serve Different
Campuses and Different Populations section of the preamble.
Assurances (Current Sec. 644.10, Proposed Sec. 644.11)
Statute: Section 402F(c)(3) of the HEA requires that EOC grantees
provide an assurance that individuals participating in the project do
not have access to services from another EOC or a TS project.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 644.10 specifies what assurances
an applicant must include in an application.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to re-number the regulations
establishing the required assurances as Sec. 644.11 and to revise
paragraph (b) to require EOC grantees to provide an assurance that they
will not provide the same services to participants as projects funded
by programs serving similar populations, such as Veterans Upward Bound
(VUB), and TS.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend the EOC project assurances to
prohibit EOC projects from providing the same services to participants
that the participants would receive under other programs serving
similar populations, such as VUB and TS, to avoid the duplication of
services between an EOC project and similar projects.
Making New Grants (Sec. 644.20)
Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the HEA requires the Secretary to
consider, when making Federal TRIO grants, each applicant's prior
experience (PE) of high quality service delivery under the program for
which funds are sought. Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now identifies the specific outcome
criteria to be used to determine an entity's PE under the EOC (see
section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA). The HEA does not establish specific
procedures for awarding PE points.
The HEA, as amended, no longer includes provisions for awarding
additional points to an application for a project in designated
territories of the United States.
Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the Secretary had the discretion to
decide whether or not to consider an application from an applicant that
carried out a project involving the
[[Page 13838]]
fraudulent use of program funds. The HEOA amended the HEA to eliminate
that discretion and prohibit the Secretary from considering an
application from such a party.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 644.20 specifies the procedures
the Secretary uses to make new grants. Section 644.20(a)(2) needs to be
expanded to specify the procedures the Secretary will use to award PE
points.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 644.20 would be expanded to
specify the procedures the Secretary would use to award PE points. We
are proposing that the Secretary evaluate the PE of an applicant for
each of three project years as designated by the Secretary in the
Federal Register notice inviting applications. We also propose that an
applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the three years for
which the annual performance report was submitted. The average of the
scores for the three project years will be the final PE score for the
applicant.
We also propose to remove Sec. 644.20(a)(3) and to amend the
wording in Sec. 644.20(d) to specify that the Secretary will not make
a new grant to an applicant if the applicant's prior project involved
the fraudulent use of program funds.
Reasons: To provide more transparency in the process the Secretary
will use to award PE points, we are proposing to amend Sec.
644.20(a)(2). We also are proposing to remove Sec. 644.20(a)(3)
because there is no longer statutory authority for this provision and
to amend Sec. 644.20(d) to reflect the statutory change that provides
that the Secretary may not consider an application from an applicant
that carried out a project involving the fraudulent use of program
funds.
Selection Criteria (Sec. 644.21)
Statute: Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, requires the Secretary to use specific outcome
criteria to measure the performance of Federal TRIO grants, including
those under the EOC program. Specifically, pursuant to section
402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA, the Secretary must measure the performance of
EOC grantees by examining the extent to which the grantee met or
exceeded the grantee's objectives (as established in the entity's
approved application) regarding: (1) The enrollment of students without
a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent and who were
served by the program in programs leading to a diploma or its
equivalent; (2) the enrollment of secondary school graduates who were
served by the program in programs of postsecondary education; (3) the
delivery of services to the total number of students served by the
program, as agreed to by the entity and the Secretary; and (4) the
provision of assistance to students served by the program in completing
financial aid applications and college admission applications. These
statutory changes necessitate a change in the grant selection criteria
for ``Objectives'' (Sec. 644.21(b)).
Further, section 402A(b) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1) of the HEOA, eliminated the ``in exceptional circumstances
clause'' that limited secondary school eligibility to apply for an EOC
grant. This statutory change necessitates a change in the grant
selection criteria regarding ``Applicant and community support'' (Sec.
644.21(d)).
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 644.21 specifies the selection
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for an EOC
grant. This provision does not reflect the changes made by the HEOA to
the HEA applicable to the following selection criteria: Objectives
(Sec. 644.21(b)) and Applicant and community support (Sec.
644.21(d)).
Proposed Regulations (Objectives): We are proposing to amend Sec.
644.21(b) to provide that, in evaluating applications for EOC grants,
the Secretary will consider the quality of the applicant's proposed
objectives and proposed targets (percentages) on the basis of the
extent to which they are both ambitious and attainable, given the
project's plan of operation, budget, and other resources. We propose to
distribute eight points for this criterion in the following manner: (1)
Two points for enrollment of participants who do not have a secondary
school diploma or its recognized equivalent in programs leading to a
secondary school diploma or its equivalent; (2) four points for
postsecondary enrollment; (3) one point for applying for student
financial aid assistance; and (4) one point for students applying for
college admission assistance.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec. 644.21(b) to reflect the
changes made to section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA by section 403(a)(5)
of the HEOA regarding the outcome criteria to be used to measure the
performance of the EOC program. We are proposing to reflect the
statutory EOC outcome criteria in Sec. 644.21(b) as selection criteria
because we believe that the focus of the process of selecting EOC grant
applications should be on the ultimate outcomes the EOC program is
designed to attain.
Moreover, during the grant period, section 402A(f)(4) of the HEA
requires the Secretary to measure the performance of the grantee based
on a comparison of the targets agreed upon for the outcome criteria
established in the applicant's approved application to the actual
results achieved during the grant period. For this reason, we believe
it is appropriate to use the outcome criteria from section
402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA as the selection criteria for the EOC program.
Outcome criteria are also used to evaluate an applicant's PE and to
assign PE points to an application. We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed regulations, and reasons for changes to
evaluating an applicant's PE in the Evaluating Prior Experience--
Outcome Criteria section of the preamble.
Proposed Regulations (Applicant and community support): We are
proposing to amend Sec. 644.21(d) to require written commitments from
institutions of higher education, in addition to the current
requirement for written commitments from schools and community
organizations, to provide resources to supplement the grant and enhance
project services. In paragraph (d) of this section, we also clarify
that the current requirement for written commitments applies to
secondary schools by adding the word ``secondary'' to the regulations.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for the proposed changes to the
Selection Criteria--Applicant and Community Support in the TS section
of the preamble.
Prior Experience Criteria (Sec. 644.22)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to the PE criteria in the TRIO
Outcome Criteria--Prior Experience section of the preamble.
Amount of a Grant (Sec. 644.23)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1)(C) of the HEOA, increased the minimum EOC grant from $180,000
to $200,000.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 644.23 specifies how the
Secretary sets the amount of a grant. This provision does not reflect
the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the regulations to
update the statutory minimum grant amount to $200,000.
Reasons: We are proposing this change to reflect the changes to
section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA by section 403(a)(1)(C) of the HEOA.
[[Page 13839]]
Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants (New
Sec. 644.24)
We discuss the statutory authority, proposed regulations, and
reasons for adding a new review process for unsuccessful applicants, in
the Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants
section of the preamble.
Allowable Costs (Sec. 644.30)
Statute: The statute does not specifically address allowable costs
in the EOC program.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 644.30 allows EOC funds to be
used for participant field trips for observing persons employed in
various career fields only if the trips are within the target area.
Current Sec. 644.30 requires a grantee to obtain prior approval from
the Secretary to use program funds to purchase computer and other
equipment.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise Sec. 644.30(a)(3)
by removing the words ``in the target area'' and by rewording the
paragraph for clarity; we also are proposing to revise Sec. 644.30(f)
to allow grantees to use program funds for the purchase, lease, or
rental of computer hardware, computer software, or other equipment for
participant development, project administration, or project
recordkeeping without requesting prior approval.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for permitting EOC grantees to
purchase computer equipment without prior approval in the Changes to
the Allowable Costs section of the TS part of this preamble. We also
believe that career field trips should not be limited to the grant
target area, as this might limit EOC participants' exposure to various
careers.
Other Requirements of a Grantee (Sec. 644.32)
Changes to Number of Participants (Sec. 644.32(b))
Statute: The HEA does not stipulate the number of participants a
project must serve.
Current Regulations: Section 644.32(b) requires an EOC project to
serve a minimum of 1,000 participants; however, the Secretary may
reduce this number if the amount of the grant for the budget period is
less than $180,000 (which was the minimum grant amount in the EOC
program prior to enactment of the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 644.32(b) to
remove the requirement that an EOC grantee serve a minimum number of
participants.
Reasons: We are proposing to remove from the regulations the
requirement that an EOC grantee serve a minimum number of participants
to give the Department flexibility to establish the number of
participants to be served based on the available resources for each
competition and to adjust these amounts for subsequent competitions
based on experience. We intend to stipulate the minimum and maximum
grant award amounts and address the number of participants an EOC
project is expected to serve each year of the grant cycle through the
Federal Register notice inviting applications for the competition. The
Federal Register notice would also establish a per participant cost to
be used to determine the amount of the grant for an applicant proposing
to serve fewer participants than required for the minimum grant award
for the competition.
Changes to Full-Time Director Requirement (Old Sec. 644.32(d); New
Sec. 644.32(c))
Statute: Section 402A(c)(6) of the HEA requires that the Secretary
permit the Director of a Federal TRIO program to administer one or more
additional programs for disadvantaged students.
Current Regulations: Section 644.32(d) requires a grantee to employ
a full-time project director unless the grantee requests a waiver.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to reorganize section 644.32 by
removing paragraph (d), redesignating Sec. 644.32(c) as Sec.
644.32(b), and adding a new Sec. 644.32(c). The new Sec. 644.32(c)
would include some of the provisions in current Sec. 644.32(d), but
would not include the requirement that a grantee request a waiver if
the Project director is administering one or two additional programs
for disadvantaged students. Specifically, a grantee would not need a
waiver from the Secretary to have a director that is less than full-
time on the project if the director is also administering one or two
additional programs for disadvantaged students. Under the proposed
regulation, however, a grantee would be required to request a waiver of
the full-time director requirement for the director to administer more
than three programs.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for permitting the Director of a
Federal TRIO program to administer one or more additional programs for
disadvantaged students in the Changes to Full-Time Director Requirement
in the TS section of the preamble.
Upward Bound (UB) Program, 34 CFR Part 645
Applicant Eligibility (Sec. 645.2)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1)(A) of the HEOA, lists the types of entities that are eligible
for UB grants. Prior to enactment of the HEOA, a secondary school would
be eligible to apply for a UB grant if it could show ``exceptional
circumstances.'' The HEOA eliminates this limitation. Further, the HEOA
defines public and private agencies and organizations that may apply
for a grant to include community-based organizations with experience in
serving disadvantaged youth.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 645.2 specifies who is eligible
to apply for an UB grant. This provision does not reflect the changes
made to applicant eligibility by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 645.2 to
conform to the statutory changes to applicant eligibility. As with
other eligible applicants, a secondary school may apply for an UB grant
without having to demonstrate ``exceptional circumstances.'' In
addition, under proposed Sec. 645.2, a community-based organization
with experience in serving disadvantaged youth may apply.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend current Sec. 645.2 to conform
to section 402A(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA.
Grantee Requirements (Sec. 645.4)
Statute: Section 402A(e)(1) and (2) of the HEA provides lists of
acceptable documentation of a participant's status as a low-income
individual. The HEOA made no substantive changes to this section of the
statute.
Current Regulations: Section 645.4(a) duplicates requirements in
Sec. 645.21. In addition, the heading for Sec. 645.4 is not
descriptive of the requirements in it.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to remove Sec. 645.4(a) of
the current regulations and redesignate the paragraphs that follow. We
also propose to revise the section heading to read as follows: ``What
are the grantee requirements for documenting the low-income and first-
generation status of participants?''
Reasons: Except for paragraph (a), the current regulation reflects
the statutory requirements for documenting a participant's low-income
and potential first-generation status. Therefore, we are proposing to
revise the heading for this section to clearly describe the grantee's
documentation requirements with regard to participant eligibility. We
are proposing to remove paragraph (a) of
[[Page 13840]]
this section because it duplicates requirements in Sec. 645.21.
Applicable Regulations (Sec. 645.5)
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Section 645.5(a) contains an outdated list of
applicable regulations.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to update the list of
regulations that apply to the UB program. We also propose to
specifically exclude 34 CFR 75.215 through 75.221 from the list of
applicable regulations that apply.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for the changes in the Applicable
Regulations for the Training program section of the preamble.
Definitions (Sec. 645.6)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to the definitions of institution
of higher education and veteran and for the addition of different
population, financial and economic literacy, foster care youth,
homeless children and youth, and individual with disabilities in the
Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO Program section of
the preamble. In addition, we propose to include definitions for two
terms applicable to both the TS and UB programs (regular secondary
school diploma and rigorous secondary school program of study) and two
terms applicable to new UB requirements (individual who has a high risk
for academic failure and veteran who has a high risk for academic
failure).
Regular Secondary School Diploma
Statute: Section 402C(b) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(c)(1) of the HEOA, requires a UB grantee to provide: ``guidance on
and assistance in alternative education programs for secondary school
dropouts that lead to the receipt of a regular secondary school
diploma.''
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 645.6(b) to
include a definition of regular secondary school diploma. The proposed
regulations would define regular secondary school diploma to mean a
level attained by individuals who meet or exceed the coursework and
performance standards for high school completion established by the
individual's State.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for this new definition in the
Definitions in the TS section of the preamble.
Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(B)(v) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, includes a new outcome criterion for UB that
requires the Secretary to consider to the extent to which a grantee met
or exceeded its objectives on project participants that complete a
rigorous secondary school program of study that will make such students
eligible for programs such as the ACG program.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the definitions in
Sec. 645.6(b) to include a definition of rigorous secondary school
program of study. The proposed regulations would define rigorous
secondary school program of study to mean a program of study that is--
(1) Established by a State educational agency (SEA) or local
educational agency (LEA) and recognized as a rigorous secondary school
program of study by the Secretary through the process described in 34
CFR Sec. 691.16(a) through Sec. 691.16(c) for the ACG Program;
(2) An advanced or honors secondary school program established by
States and in existence for the 2004-2005 school year or later school
years;
(3) Any secondary school program in which a student successfully
completes at a minimum the following courses:
(i) Four years of English.
(ii) Three years of mathematics, including algebra I and a higher-
level class such as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and
statistics.
(iii) Three years of science, including one year each of at least
two of the following courses: biology, chemistry, and physics.
(iv) Three years of social studies.
(v) One year of a language other than English;
(4) A secondary school program identified by a State-level
partnership that is recognized by the State Scholars Initiative of the
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), Boulder,
Colorado;
(5) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at
least two courses from an International Baccalaureate Diploma Program
sponsored by the International Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland, and receives a score of a ``4'' or higher on the
examinations for at least two of those courses; or
(6) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at
least two Advanced Placement courses and receives a score of ``3'' or
higher on the College Board's Advanced Placement Program Exams for at
least two of those courses.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for this new definition in the
Definitions in the TS section of the preamble. Individual who has a
high risk for academic failure and veteran who has a high risk for
academic failure
Statute: The HEOA amended section 402C(e)(2) of the HEA to include
``students who have a high risk for academic failure'' as a group
eligible to be served by an UB project.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to add a definition of an
individual who has a high risk for academic failure for participants in
regular UB projects and a definition of a veteran who has a high risk
for academic failure for participants in a VUB project.
For regular UB, an individual who has a high risk for academic
failure would mean an individual who: (1) Has not achieved at the
proficient level on State assessments in reading or language arts; (2)
has not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments in math;
(3) has not completed pre-algebra, algebra, or geometry; or (4) has a
grade point average of 2.5 or less (on a 4.0 scale) for the most recent
school year for which grade point averages are available.
For VUB, a veteran who has a high risk for academic failure would
mean a veteran who: (1) Has been out of high school or dropped out of a
program of postsecondary education for five or more years; (2) has
scored on standardized tests below the level that demonstrates a
likelihood of success in a program of postsecondary education; or (3)
meets the definition of an individual with disabilities as defined in
645.6(b).
Reasons: We have proposed a definition of a high risk student based
on our experience in administering the TRIO programs and that we
believe appropriately identifies students most in need of academic
assistance.
During the negotiated rulemaking sessions, we initially proposed
that only regular UB projects be required to include students who are
at high risk of academic failure as eligible participants. Because of
the different populations served by UBMS and VUB projects, we did not
think this provision should apply to these two project types. Many of
the non-Federal negotiators agreed that UBMS projects should not be
required to serve high-risk students since UBMS projects are special
focus projects designed to prepare high school students for
postsecondary education
[[Page 13841]]
programs that lead to careers in math and science fields.
Many of the non-Federal negotiators, however, felt that the
requirement to serve high-risk students should apply to VUB projects.
The proposed definition of a veteran who has a high risk for academic
failure reflects the suggestions of some of the non-Federal
negotiators. This proposed change is intended to ensure that VUB
projects help veterans who can most benefit from the services offered.
Additionally, to ensure that disabled veterans can benefit from the
educational services and activities the VUB project provides, the VUB
definition would include individuals who meet the proposed definition
of an individual with disabilities.
UB Required Services (Sec. 645.11)
Statute: Section 403(c) of the HEOA amended sections 402C of HEA
and modified the required services or activities for a UB grantee.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 645.11 does not reflect the
changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: To conform with the HEA, we are proposing to
amended the regulations to require that UB grantees provide the
following services: (1) Academic tutoring to enable students to
complete secondary or postsecondary courses, which may include
instruction in reading, writing, study skills, mathematics, science,
and other subjects; (2) advice and assistance in secondary and
postsecondary course selection; (3) assistance in preparing for college
entrance examinations and completing college admission applications;
(4)(i) providing information on the full range of Federal student
financial aid programs and benefits (including Federal Pell Grant
awards and loan forgiveness) and resources for locating public and
private scholarships; and (ii) assistance in completing financial aid
applications, including the Free Application for Federal Student Aid
described in section 483(e) of the HEA; (5) guidance on and assistance
in secondary school reentry, alternative education programs for
secondary school dropouts that lead to the receipt of a regular
secondary school diploma, entry into general educational development
(GED) programs, or entry into postsecondary education; and (6)
education or counseling services designed to improve the financial
literacy and economic literacy of students or the student's parents,
including financial planning for postsecondary education.
Reasons: We are proposing these changes to align the regulations
with section 402C of the HEA as amended by the HEOA. Prior to enactment
of the HEOA, UB grantees could choose participants services from among
a number of permissible activities and services. Section 403(c) of the
HEOA, however, amended the HEA to require grantees to provide certain
services. The proposed amendments reflect the statutory change.
UB and UBMS Permissible Services (Sec. 645.12)
Statute: Section 403(c)(4) of the HEOA amended section 402C(d) of
the HEA, which defines the permissible services or activities in the UB
program.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 645.11(b) specifies what
services an UB project may provide. This provision does not reflect
changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to reflect the changes made
by the HEOA and specify that UB and UBMS grantees may provide the
following permissible services: (1) Exposure to cultural events,
academic programs, and other activities not usually available to
disadvantaged youth; (2) information, activities, and instruction
designed to acquaint youth participating in the project with the range
of career options available to the youth; (3) on-campus residential
programs; (4) mentoring programs involving elementary school or
secondary school teachers or counselors, faculty members at
institutions of higher education, students, or any combination of these
persons; (5) work-study positions where youth participating in the
project are exposed to careers requiring a postsecondary degree; and
(6) programs and activities described in (1) through (5) above and are
specially designed for participants who are limited English proficient,
participants from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary education, participants with disabilities, participants
who are homeless children and youths, participants who are foster care
youth, or other disconnected participants.
Reasons: We are proposing these changes to align the regulations
with section 402C(d) of the HEA as amended by the HEOA. Prior to
enactment of the new law, projects funded under the UB program could
choose from among a number of permissible activities and services to
provide participants. Section 403(c) of the HEOA, however, amended
section 402C of the HEA to require grantees to provide certain services
to provide participants and gives grantees the option of providing
other services. The proposed amendments would reflect the statutory
changes relating to permissible services or activities.
VUB Permissible Services (Sec. 645.15)
Statute: Section 403(c) of the HEOA amended section 402C of the HEA
governing the UB program which defines the required and permissible
services or activities for VUB grantees.
Current Regulations: Current regulations do not reflect the changes
made by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to modify Sec. 645.15 to
specify that VUB grantees may provide special services, including
mathematics and science preparation, to enable veterans to make the
transition to postsecondary education.
Reasons: We are proposing this change to align the regulations with
the statutory amendment made by section 403(c) of the HEOA to section
402C of the HEA.
Number of Applications (Sec. 645.20)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to the number of applications an
eligible applicant may submit (Sec. 645.20) in the Number of
Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit To Serve Different Campuses
and Different Populations section of the preamble.
Assurances (Sec. 645.21)
Statute: Section 403(c)(5) of the HEOA amended section 402C(e) of
the HEA, which requires UB grantees to provide certain assurances as
part of the application process. Prior to enactment of the HEOA, a UB
grantee had to provide an assurance that all participants in its
project would be either low-income or first-generation college students
with at least two-thirds of the participants a being both low-income
and first-generation. The remaining participants could be either low-
income individuals or first-generation college students. The HEOA
amended section 402C(e) of the HEA, to modify this last group to
include individuals who are at high risk for academic failure as a
separate group of eligible participants. The HEOA also requires
applicants to provide an assurance that no student will be denied
participation in the applicant's UB project because the student entered
the project after completing the 9th grade.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 645.21 specifies what assurances
an applicant for a UB grant must include in an application. This
provision does not reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
[[Page 13842]]
Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend Sec. 645.21 to include
assurances for each of the three project types: UB, UBMS, and VUB. We
are also proposing to add a new provision that would require that a UB
grantee provide an assurance that the project will not provide
participants the same services they are receiving from other programs
serving similar populations.
An applicant for a regular UB grant would have to provide
assurances that--
(1) Not less than two-thirds of the project's participants will be
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 will enter the project after the 9th grade;
(4) Individuals who are receiving services from a GEAR UP project
under 34 CFR part 694, another UB or UBMS project under 34 CFR part
645, a TS project under 34 CFR part 643, an EOC project under 34 CFR
part 644, or a project under other programs serving similar populations
will not receive the same services under the proposed project.
An applicant for an UBMS grant would have to provide assurances
that--
(1) Not less than two-thirds of the project's participants will be
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; and
(3) No student will be denied participation in a project because
the student would enter the project after the 9th grade; and
(4) Individuals who are receiving services from a GEAR UP project
under 34 CFR part 694, a regular UB or another UBMS project under 34
CFR part 645, a TS project under 34 CFR part 643, EOC under 34 CFR part
644, or a project under other programs serving similar populations will
not receive the same services under the proposed project.
An applicant for a VUB grant must have to provide assurances to the
Secretary that--
(1) Not less than two-thirds of the project's participants will be
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) Individuals who are receiving services from another VUB project
under 34 CFR part 645, a TS project under 34 CFR part 643, an EOC
project under 34 CFR part 644, or a project under other programs
serving similar populations will not receive the same services under
the proposed project.
Reasons: The changes to the listing of required assurances in Sec.
645.21 are needed to conform the regulations to the changes made to the
HEA. Also, to ensure no duplication of services between an UB project
and other similar programs, we are proposing that UB grantees provide
an assurance that they will not provide the same service to a
participant also participating, as applicable, in a project funded by
GEAR UP, UB, UBMS, VUB, TS, EOC, or other programs serving similar
populations.
Making New Grants (Sec. 645.30)
Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the HEA requires the Secretary to
consider, when making Federal TRIO grants, each applicant's prior
experience (PE) of high quality service delivery under the program for
which funds are sought. Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now identifies the specific outcome
criteria to be used to determine an entity's PE under the UB programs
(see section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA). The HEA does not establish
specific procedures for awarding PE points.
Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the Secretary had the discretion to
decide whether or not to consider an application from an applicant that
carried out a project involving the fraudulent use of program funds.
The HEOA amended the HEA to eliminate that discretion and prohibit the
Secretary from considering an application from such a party.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 645.30 specifies the procedures
the Secretary uses to make new grants. Section 645.30(a)(2) needs to be
expanded to specify the procedures the Secretary will use to award PE
points.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 645.30 would be expanded to
specify the procedures the Secretary would use to award PE points. We
are proposing that the Secretary evaluate the PE of an applicant for
each of three project years as designated by the Secretary in the
Federal Register notice inviting applications. We also propose that an
applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the three years for
which the annual performance report was submitted. The average of the
scores for the three project years will be the final PE score for the
applicant.
We also propose to amend the wording in Sec. 645.30(d) to specify
that the Secretary will not make a new grant to an applicant if the
applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.
Reasons: To provide more transparency in the process the Secretary
will use to award PE points, we are proposing to amend Sec.
645.30(a)(2). We also are proposing to amend Sec. 645.30(d) to reflect
the statutory change that provides that the Secretary may not consider
an application from an applicant that carried out a project involving
the fraudulent use of program funds.
Selection Criteria (Sec. 645.31)
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, requires the Secretary to use specific outcome
criteria to measure the performance of Federal TRIO grants, including
those funded under the UB program. Specifically, pursuant to section
402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA, the Secretary must measure the performance of
UB grantees by examining the extent to which the grantee met or
exceeded the grant's objectives (as established in the grantee's
approved application) regarding: (1) The delivery of service to the
total number of students served by the program, as agreed upon by the
entity and the Secretary for the period; (2) the students' school
performance, as measured by the students' grade point average, or its
equivalent; (3) the students' academic performance, as measured by
standardized tests, including tests required by the students' State;
(4) the retention in, and graduation from, secondary school of the
students; (5) the completion by these students of a rigorous secondary
school program of study that will make these students eligible for
programs such as the ACG; (6) the enrollment of the students in an
institution of higher education; and, (7) to the extent practicable,
the postsecondary education completion of the students. These statutory
changes necessitate a change in the grant selection criteria for
``Objectives'' (Sec. 645.31(b)).
Further, section 402A(b) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1) of the HEOA, eliminated the ``in exceptional circumstances
clause'' that limited the eligibility of secondary schools to apply for
grants. This statutory change necessitates a change in the grant
selection criteria regarding ``Applicant and community support'' (Sec.
645.31(d)).
[[Page 13843]]
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 645.31 specifies the selection
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for an UB grant.
This provision does not reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA
applicable to the following selection criteria: Objectives (Sec.
645.31(b)) and Applicant and community support (Sec. 645.31(d)).
Proposed Regulations (Objectives): We are proposing to amend Sec.
645.31(b) to provide that, in evaluating UB grant applications, the
Secretary will consider the quality of the applicant's proposed
objectives and proposed targets (percentages) on the basis of the
extent to which they are both ambitious and attainable, given the
project's plan of operation, budget, and other resources. We propose to
distribute nine points for this criterion in the following manner for
UB and UBMS: (1) One point for academic performance (GPA); (2) one
point for academic performance (standardized test scores); (3) two
points for secondary school graduation (with regular secondary school
diploma); (4) one point for completion of a rigorous secondary school
program of study; (5) three points for postsecondary enrollment; and
(6) one point for postsecondary completion.
For VUB, we propose to distribute nine points for this criterion in
the following manner: (1) Two points for academic performance
(standardized test scores); (2) three points for education program
retention and completion; (3) three points for postsecondary
enrollment; and (4) one point for postsecondary completion.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec. 645.31(b) to reflect the
changes made to section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA by section 403(a)(5)
of the HEOA regarding the outcome criteria to be used to measure the
performance of the UB program. We are proposing to reflect the
statutory UB outcome criteria in Sec. 645.31(b) as selection criteria
because we believe that the focus at the outset of the UB discretionary
grant process (i.e., the evaluation of applications using UB selection
criteria) should be on the ultimate outcomes the UB program is intended
to attain.
Moreover, during the grant period, section 402A(f)(4) of the HEA
requires the Secretary to measure the performance of the grant based on
a comparison of the targets agreed upon for the outcome criteria
established in the applicant's approved application to the actual
results achieved during each year of the grant period. For this reason,
we believe it is appropriate to reflect the outcome criteria from
section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA as the selection criteria for the UB
program.
Outcome criteria are also used to evaluate an applicant's PE and
assign PE points to an application. We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed regulations, and reasons for changes to
evaluating an applicant's PE in the Evaluating Prior Experience--
Outcome Criteria section of the preamble.
Proposed Regulations (Applicant and community support): We are
proposing to amend Sec. 645.31(d)(2) to require written commitments
from institutions of higher education, in addition to the current
requirement for written commitments from schools and community
organizations, to provide resources to supplement the grant and enhance
project services.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for the proposed changes to the
Selection Criteria--Applicant and Community Support in the TS section
of the preamble.
Prior Experience Criteria (Sec. 645.32)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to the PE criteria in Sec. 645.32
in the TRIO Outcome Criteria--Prior Experience section of the preamble.
Amount of a Grant (Sec. 645.33)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1)(C) of the HEOA, increased the minimum UB grant from $190,000
to $200,000.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 645.33 specifies how the
Secretary sets the amount of a grant. This provision does not reflect
the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the regulations to
reflect the statutory minimum grant amount.
Reasons: We are proposing this change to reflect the changes made
to section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA by the HEOA.
Project Period (Sec. 645.34)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1)(B)(i) of the HEOA, provides that all UB grants are for five
years. Prior to the HEOA, UB grants were awarded for four years, except
for applicants whose peer review scores were in the highest 10 percent
of the scores of all applicants; these applicants received five year
grants.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 645.34 specifies the length of
an UB project period. This provision does not reflect the change made
by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise the regulations to
define the project period under the UB program as five years for all
grantees.
Reasons: The change is made to conform Sec. 645.34 with section
402A(b)(2) of the HEA as amended by the HEOA.
Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants (Sec.
645.35)
We discuss the statutory authority, proposed regulations, and
reasons for providing a new review process for unsuccessful applicants
in the Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants
section of the preamble.
Allowable Costs (Sec. 645.40)
Statute: The statute does not address the use of UB program funds
to purchase equipment.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 645.40(n) requires a grantee to
obtain prior approval from the Secretary to purchase computer and other
equipment.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise Sec. 645.40(n),
redesignate Sec. 645.40(o) as Sec. 645.40(p), and add a new Sec.
645.45(o) to permit an UB grantee, under certain circumstances, to
purchase, lease or rent computer hardware, software, and other
equipment and supplies that support the delivery of services to
participants, including technology used by participants in a rigorous
secondary school program of study and for project administration and
recordkeeping without requiring prior approval from the Department.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for permitting an UB grantee to
purchase, lease, or rent computer equipment without prior approval in
the Changes to the Allowable Costs section of the TS preamble.
Stipends (Sec. 645.42)
Statute: Section 403(c)(6) of the HEOA amended section 402C(f) of
the HEA regarding the payment of stipends to UB project participants.
The HEOA amended the HEA by deleting the words ``during June, July, and
August'' and replacing them with ``during the summer school recess, for
a period not to exceed three months.''
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 645.42 specifies the terms of
the payment of stipends in the UB program. This provision does not
reflect changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
[[Page 13844]]
Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend the current regulations
to state that the stipend may not exceed $60 per month for the summer
school recess for a period not to exceed three months except for
participants in a work-study position who may be paid $300 per month
during the summer recess.
Reasons: The proposed change would amend the regulations to reflect
the change to section 402C(f) of the HEA by section 403(c)(6) of the
HEOA.
Other Requirements of a Grantee (Sec. 645.43)
In these proposed regulations, current Sec. 645.43(a) and (b)
would be removed, a new Sec. 645.43(a) would be added, and Sec.
645.43(c) would be redesignated as Sec. 645.43(b).
Changes to Number of Participants (Current Sec. 645.43(a) Would Be
Removed)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(3) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA,
establishes a minimum grant of $200,000 for UB. The HEA does not
establish a minimum number of participants a UB project must serve.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 645.43(a)(1) and (2) require a
regular UB project to serve between 50 and 150 participants; a UBMS
project to serve between 50 and 75 participants; and a VUB project to
serve a minimum of 120 participants. Current Sec. 645.43(a)(3) gives
the Secretary the authority to waive the number of participant
requirements if the applicant demonstrates that the project will be
more cost effective and consistent with the objectives of the program
if a greater or lesser number of participants will be served.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to remove current Sec. 645.43(a).
Reasons: We are proposing to remove from the regulations the
requirement that UB grantees serve a minimum number of participants to
give the Department the flexibility to establish the number of
participants to be served based on the available resources for each
competition and to adjust these numbers for subsequent competitions
based on experience, changing priorities, and cost analyses.
We plan to stipulate the minimum and maximum grant award amounts
and address the number of participants a UB project is expected to
serve each year of the grant cycle through the Federal Register notice
inviting applications for the competition. The Federal Register notice
would also establish a per participant cost to be used to determine the
amount of the grant for an applicant proposing to serve fewer
participants than required for the minimum grant award for the
competition.
Changes to Full-Time Director Requirement (New Sec. 645.43(a))
Statute: Section 402A(c)(6) of the HEA requires that the Secretary
permit the Director of a Federal TRIO program to administer one or more
additional programs for disadvantaged students.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 645.43(b) requires a grantee to
employ a full-time project director unless the grantee requests a
waiver.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to add a new Sec. 645.43(a), that
would include some of the provisions in current Sec. 645.43(b), but
would eliminate the requirement for a waiver if a project director is
administering one or two programs for disadvantaged students. A grantee
would not need a waiver from the Secretary to have a director that is
less than full-time on the project if the director is also
administering one or two additional programs for disadvantaged
students. A grantee would be required to request a waiver of the full-
time director requirement for the director to administer more than
three programs.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for permitting the Director of a
Federal TRIO program to administer one or more additional programs for
disadvantaged students in the Changes to Full-Time Director Requirement
in the TS section of the preamble.
Student Support Services (SSS), 34 CFR Part 646
SSS Program Purpose (Sec. 646.1)
Statute: Section 403(d)(1) of the HEOA amended section 402D(a) of
the HEA, and modified the purpose of the SSS program.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 646.1(c) does not reflect the
changes made by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend Sec. 646.1(c) and add
paragraph (d) as follows:
(c) Foster an institutional climate supportive of the success of
students who are limited English proficient, students from groups that
are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education, students
with disabilities, students who are homeless children and youth,
students who are in foster care or are aging out of the foster care
system, or other disconnected students; and
(d) Improve the financial literacy and economic literacy of
students in areas such as--
(1) Basic personal income, household money management, and
financial planning skills; and
(2) Basic economic decision-making skills.
Reasons: The proposed changes are necessary to conform the
regulations to section 402D(a)(3) of the HEA.
Required and Permissible Services (Sec. 646.4)
Statute: Section 403(b) of the HEOA amended section 402D of the HEA
to require SSS grantees to provide certain services and to permit them
to offer other permissible services.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 646.4 specifies what services a
SSS grantee may provide. Prior to the changes made by the HEOA, SSS
grantees could choose from among a number of permissible activities and
services to provide participants. The current regulations do not
identify any required services or activities that an SSS grantee must
provide.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would revise Sec.
646.4 to reflect the required and permissible services or activities
for SSS grantees under the HEA.
Consistent with section 402D of the HEA, proposed Sec. 646.4 would
require that SSS projects provide the following services and
activities: (1) Academic tutoring, directly or through other services
provided by the institution, to enable students to complete
postsecondary courses, which may include instruction in reading,
writing, study skills, mathematics, science, and other subjects; (2)
advice and assistance in postsecondary course selection; (3)(i)
information on both the full range of Federal student financial aid
programs and benefits (including Federal Pell Grant awards and loan
forgiveness) and resources for locating public and private
scholarships, and (ii) assistance in completing financial aid
applications, including the Free Application for Federal Student Aid;
(4) education or counseling services designed to improve financial
literacy and economic literacy of students, including financial
planning for postsecondary education; (5) activities designed to assist
students participating in the project in applying for admission to, and
obtaining financial assistance for enrollment in, graduate and
professional programs; and (6) activities designed to assist students
enrolled in two-year institutions of higher education in applying for
admission to, and obtaining financial assistance for enrollment in, a
four-year program of postsecondary education.
The proposed regulations would specify the following permissible
services or activities for SSS projects: (1) individualized counseling
for personal, career, and academic matters provided
[[Page 13845]]
by assigned counselors; (2) information, activities, and instruction
designed to acquaint students participating in the project with the
range of career options available to the students; (3) exposure to
cultural events and academic programs not usually available to
disadvantaged students; (4) mentoring programs involving faculty or
upper class students, or a combination thereof; (5) securing temporary
housing during breaks in the academic year for students who are
homeless children and youths (as that term is defined in section 725 of
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 1134a)) or were
formerly homeless children and youths, and students who are in foster
care or are aging out of the foster care system; and (6) programs and
activities described in items (1) through (5) above that are specially
designed for students who are limited English proficient, students from
groups that are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary
education, students who are individuals with disabilities, students who
are homeless children and youths, students who are foster care youth,
or other disconnected students.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise Sec. 646.4 to conform to
changes made by the HEOA.
Project Period (Sec. 646.5)
Statute: Section 403a(1)(B)(i) of the HEOA amended the HEA to
provide that all SSS grants are for five years. Prior to enactment of
the HEOA, SSS grants were awarded for four years, except for applicants
whose peer review scores are in the highest ten percent of the scores
of all applicants. Applicants with peer review scores in the highest
ten percent of all applicants receive five-year grants.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 646.5 specifies the length of an
SSS project period. This provision does not reflect the change made by
the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise Sec. 646.5 to
define the project period as five years for all grantees.
Reasons: The proposed changes are necessary to conform to section
402A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA.
Applicable Regulations (Sec. 646.6)
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Section 646.6 specifies which regulations
apply to the SSS program. This provision contains an outdated list of
applicable regulations.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to update the list of
regulations that apply to the SSS program. We also propose to exclude
Sec. Sec. 75.215 to 75.221 from the list of applicable regulations.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for the changes elsewhere in this
preamble under the Applicable Regulations heading for the Training
program.
Definitions (Sec. 646.7)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to the definition of institution
of higher education and individual with disabilities and for the
addition of different campus, different population, financial and
economic literacy, foster care youth, and homeless children and youth
in the Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO Program
section of the preamble. In addition, we propose to include definitions
of the terms low-income individual and first generation college
student.
Statute: Section 402A(h) of the HEA includes definitions of the
terms ``low-income individual'' and ``first generation college
student.''
Current Regulations: Section 646.7(a) currently includes cross-
references to statutory definitions of low-income individual and first-
generation college student, but does not include those definitions.
Current Sec. 646.7(b) includes a list of the terms used in Part 646
that are defined in 34 CFR 77.1. Current Sec. 646.7(c) defines certain
terms, some of which apply to all of the Federal TRIO programs, and
some that are specific to the SSS program.
Proposed Regulations: Current Sec. 646.7(a), which includes
references to terms defined in the HEA, would be removed, and the
definitions of the terms currently listed in Sec. 646.7(a) would be
included in proposed Sec. 646.7(c). Current Sec. 646.7(b) would be
redesignated as Sec. 646.7(a) and would include the list of terms
defined in 34 CFR 77.1 that apply to the SSS program. Finally, current
Sec. 646.7(c) would be redesignated as Sec. 646.7(b), and would
include definitions of terms that apply to the SSS program, some of
which apply to all the Federal TRIO programs, as discussed elsewhere in
this preamble. We also propose to add the definitions of low-income
individual and first-generation college student to Sec. 646.7(c).
Reasons: We are proposing to revise Sec. 646.7 and add the
definitions for low-income individual and a first-generation college
student to provide for consistency across the regulations for the
Federal TRIO programs.
Number of Applications (Sec. 646.10)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for modifying Sec. 646.10 in the Number of
Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit to Serve Different Campuses
and Different Populations section of the preamble.
Assurances (Sec. 646.11) (Title To Be Changed to: ``What Assurances
and Other Information Must an Applicant Include in an Application?'')
Statute: Under section 402D(e) of the HEA as amended by the HEOA,
the Secretary, in approving applications, shall consider an SSS
applicant's past history in providing sufficient financial assistance
to meet the full financial need of each student in the project and
maintaining loan burden of each student at a manageable level. Prior to
this amendment section 402D(e) of the HEA specified certain assurances
that an applicant must provide to the Secretary.
Current Regulations: Section 646.11 does not reflect the statutory
requirement that an applicant provide information on its efforts in
providing sufficient financial assistance to meet the full financial
need of each student in the project and maintaining the loan burden of
each student at a manageable level.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 646.11 would require an
applicant to describe, in its application, its efforts, and where
applicable, its past history, in providing sufficient financial
assistance to meet the full financial need of each student in the
project and maintaining the loan burden of each student at a manageable
level. In addition, we propose to change the section heading to ``What
assurances and other information must an applicant include in an
application?''
Reasons: The proposed changes are necessary to reflect statutory
requirements. We are proposing the change to the heading for Sec.
646.11 to include a reference to ``other information'' because the
proposed regulations would require an applicant to include information
that is not an assurance.
Making New Grants (Sec. 646.20)
Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the HEA requires the Secretary to
consider, when making Federal TRIO grants, each applicant's prior
experience (PE) of high quality service delivery under the program for
which funds are sought. Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now identifies the specific outcome
criteria to be used to determine an entity's PE under the SSS (see
section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA). The HEA does not establish specific
procedures for awarding PE points.
[[Page 13846]]
Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the Secretary had the discretion to
decide whether or not to consider an application from an applicant that
carried out a project involving the fraudulent use of program funds.
The HEOA amended the HEA to eliminate that discretion and prohibit the
Secretary from considering an application from such a party.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 646.20 specifies the procedures
the Secretary uses to make new grants. Section 645.30(a)(2) needs to be
expanded to specify the procedures the Secretary will use to award PE
points.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 646.20 would be expanded to
specify the procedures the Secretary would use to award PE points. We
are proposing that the Secretary evaluate the PE of an applicant for
each of three project years as designated by the Secretary in the
Federal Register notice inviting applications. We also propose that an
applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the three years for
which the annual performance report was submitted; the average of the
scores for the three project years will be the final PE score for the
applicant.
We also propose to amend Sec. 646.20(d) to specify that the
Secretary will not make a new grant to an applicant if the applicant's
prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec. 646.20(a)(2) to provide
more transparency in the process the Secretary will use to award PE
points. We are also proposing to modify Sec. 646.20(d) to be
consistent with the language used for similar provisions in the
proposed regulations for the other Federal TRIO programs.
Selection Criteria (Sec. 646.21)
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a) of the HEOA, requires the Secretary to use specific outcome
criteria to measure the performance of Federal TRIO grantees, including
grantees who receive funding under the SSS program. Specifically,
pursuant to section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA, the Secretary must
measure the performance of SSS grantees by examining the extent to
which the grantee met or exceeded the grant's objectives (as
established in the grantee's approved application) concerning: (1) The
delivery of service to the total number of students served, as agreed
upon by the entity and the Secretary for the period; (2) retention in
postsecondary education of the students served by the SSS project; (3)
students served by the SSS project who remain in good academic
standing; and (4) completion of postsecondary education degrees or
certificates, and transfer to institutions of higher education that
offer baccalaureate degrees of project participants. These statutory
changes necessitate changes to Sec. 646.21(b).
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 646.21 specifies the selection
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a SSS grant.
The regulations do not reflect the changes made by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 646.21(b) to
provide that, in evaluating SSS grant applications, the Secretary will
consider the quality of the applicant's proposed objectives on the
basis of the extent to which they are both ambitious and attainable,
given the project's plan of operation, budget, and other resources. We
propose to distribute eight points for this criterion in the following
manner: (1) Three points for retention in postsecondary education; (2)
two points for students in good academic standing at the grantee
institution; (3) for two-year institutions only: (a) one point for
certificate or degree completion; and (b) two points for certificate or
degree completion and transfer to a four-year institution; or (4) for
four year institutions only, three points for completion of a
baccalaureate degree.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec. 646.21(b) to reflect the
changes made to section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA by section 403(a) of
the HEOA regarding the outcome criteria to be used to measure
performance of the SSS program. We are proposing to reflect the revised
SSS outcome criteria in Sec. 646.21(b) as selection criteria because
we believe that the focus at the outset of the SSS discretionary grant
process (i.e., the evaluation of applications using SSS selection
criteria) should be on the ultimate outcomes the SSS program is
designed to attain.
Moreover, section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA requires the Secretary
to measure the performance of the grantee based on a comparison of the
targets agreed upon for the outcome criteria established in the
applicant's approved application to the actual results achieved during
the grant period. For this reason, we believe it is appropriate to
reflect the outcome criteria from section 402A(f))(3)(C) of the HEA in
the selection criteria for the SSS program.
Outcome criteria are also used to evaluate an applicant's PE and
assign PE points to an application. We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed regulations, and reasons for changes to
evaluating an applicant's PE in the Evaluating Prior Experience--
Outcome Criteria section of the preamble.
Prior Experience Criteria (Sec. 646.22)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to the SSS PE criteria in the TRIO
Outcome Criteria--Prior Experience section of the preamble.
Amount of a Grant (Sec. 646.23)
Statute: Section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(1) of the HEOA, increased the minimum SSS grant from $170,000 to
$200,000.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 646.23 specifies how the
Secretary sets the amount of a grant. This provision does not reflect
the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the regulations to
update the statutory minimum grant amount to $200,000.
Reasons: We are proposing this change to reflect the change made by
the HEOA.
Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants (Sec.
646.24)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons adding a new review process for unsuccessful
applicants in the Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program
Applicants section of the preamble.
Allowable and Unallowable Costs (Sec. Sec. 646.30 and 646.31)
Statute: The HEOA amended section 402D(d)(1) of the HEA to allow a
recipient of an SSS grant that undertakes any of the permissible
services in section 402D(c) to use its grant funds to provide grant aid
to students under certain circumstances. Further, the HEOA amended
section 402D(c)(5) of the HEA to include, in the list of permissible
services in the SSS program, securing temporary housing during breaks
in the academic year for participants who are homeless, or were
formerly homeless, or who are in foster care. The statute does not
address the use of grant funds to purchase computers and other
equipment.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 646.30(f) does not reflect the
new statutory provisions. Current Sec. 646.30(f) requires a grantee to
obtain prior approval from the Secretary to use grant funds to purchase
computers and other equipment. Current Sec. 646.31(b) prohibits the
use of program funds for tuition, fees, stipends, and other forms
[[Page 13847]]
of direct financial support for staff and participants.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 646.30 by
revising paragraph (f) to include as an allowable cost the purchase,
lease or rental of computer hardware for participant development,
project administration, and recordkeeping without requiring prior
approval by the Secretary. We are also proposing to add as allowable
costs the use of SSS funds for grant aid in a new paragraph (i) and to
pay the costs of temporary housing for homeless and foster care youth
in a new paragraph (j).
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for permitting a SSS project to
purchase computer equipment without prior approval from the Secretary
in the Changes to the Allowable Costs section of the TS preamble.
The HEOA placed significant emphasis on the need for SSS grantees
to provide services for homeless and foster care youth to help
eliminate the barriers these students face in pursuing their
educational goals. In addition, because securing temporary housing
during breaks in the academic year for participants who are homeless,
or were formerly homeless, or who are in foster care is now included in
the list of permissible services in section 402D(c)(5) of the HEA, we
believe that the use of SSS funds for these purposes should be included
as an allowable cost. The proposed change to allow grant funds to be
used for grant aid for participants is to conform the regulations to
the statute.
Other Requirements of a Grantee (Sec. 646.32)
Changes to Full-Time Director Requirement (Sec. 646.32(c))
Statute: Section 402A(c)(6) of the HEA requires that the Secretary
permit the Director of a Federal TRIO program to administer one or more
additional programs for disadvantaged students.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 646.32(c) requires a grantee to
employ a full-time project director unless the grantee requests a
waiver to allow the Director to administer more than one program for
disadvantaged students.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend Sec. 646.32(c) to
eliminate the requirement for a waiver if a Director is administering
one or two additional programs for disadvantaged students. A grantee
must request a waiver of the full-time director requirement for the
Director to administer more than three programs.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for permitting the Director of a
Federal TRIO program to administer one or more additional programs for
disadvantaged students in the Changes to Full-Time Director Requirement
in the TS section of the preamble.
Matching Requirements for Grant Aid (Sec. 646.33)
Statute: Section 402D(d)(1) of the HEA permits a grantee to use SSS
funds to provide grant aid to students who meet the requirements in
section 402D(d)(2) and (3) of the HEA. Section 402D(d)(4) of the HEA
stipulates that grantees that use program funds for grant aid must
provide a non-Federal match, in cash, of not less than 33 percent of
the Federal funds used for grant aid. A grant recipient that is an
institution of higher education eligible to receive funds under part A
or part B of title III of the HEA or under title V of the HEA, is not
required to match the Federal funds used for grant aid. Section
402D(d)(5) limits the percentage of SSS program funds that may be used
for grant aid to no more than 20 percent of the SSS funds.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to add a new Sec. 646.33 that
would specify the statutory matching and other requirements for a
grantee that uses SSS funds for grant aid.
Reasons: These changes are necessary to reflect statutory changes.
Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair) Program, 34 CFR
Part 647
Required and Permissible Services (Sec. 647.4)
Statute: Section 403(b) of the HEOA amended section 402E of the HEA
to require McNair grantees to provide certain services that were
previously permissible and by adding a new list of permissible
services.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 647.4 includes a list of
permissible services under the program.
Proposed Regulations: Consistent with section 402E(b) of the HEA,
proposed Sec. 647.4(a) would require that McNair grantees provide: (1)
Opportunities for research or other scholarly activities at the grantee
institution or at graduate centers that are designed to provide
students with effective preparation for doctoral study; (2) summer
internships; (3) seminars and other educational activities designed to
prepare students for doctoral study; (4) tutoring; (5) academic
counseling; and (6) assistance to students in securing admission to,
and financial assistance for, enrollment in graduate programs.
Consistent with section 402E(c) of the HEA, proposed Sec. 647.4(b)
would specify that the following are permissible services or activities
for McNair grantees: (1) Education or counseling services designed to
improve the financial literacy and economic literacy of students,
including financial planning for postsecondary education; (2) mentoring
programs involving faculty members at institutions of higher education,
students, or a combination of faculty members and students; and (3)
exposure to cultural events and academic programs not usually available
to disadvantaged students.
Reasons: We are proposing these changes to align the regulations
with the statutory amendments made by section 403(b) of the HEOA to
section 402E(b) and (c) of the HEA.
Project Period (Sec. 647.5)
Statute: Section 403(a)(1)(B)(i) of the HEOA amended section
402A(b)(2) of the HEA to provide that all grants under the McNair
program will be for five years. Prior to enactment of the HEOA, McNair
grants were awarded for four years except for applications that score
in the highest ten percent of all applications approved for new grants,
which are for five years.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 647.5 specifies the length of a
McNair project period. This provision does not reflect the change made
by the HEOA to the HEA.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 647.5 would reflect the
statutory change that establishes the project period as five years for
all grantees.
Reasons: The change is made to conform to section 402A(b)(2) of the
HEA, as amended by the HEOA.
Applicable Regulations (Sec. 647.6)
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Section 647.6 specifies which regulations
apply to the McNair program. This provision contains an outdated list
of regulations.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to update the list of
regulations that apply to the McNair program. We also propose to
exclude sections 75.215 to 75.221 from the list of applicable
regulations.
Reasons: We discuss the reasons for these changes in the Applicable
Regulations for the Training program section of the preamble.
Definitions (Sec. 647.7)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to the definition of institution
of higher education and for the addition of different campus, different
population, and financial and economic literacy, in
[[Page 13848]]
the Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO Program
section of the preamble.
We are also proposing to revise the definitions for three
additional terms that are applicable only to the McNair program:
graduate center; groups underrepresented in graduate school; and
research or scholarly activity.
Graduate Center
Statute: Sections 101 and 102 of the HEA define the term
institution of higher education.
Current Regulations: The definition of graduate center in current
Sec. 647.7(b) includes outdated statutory citations to the definition
of an educational institution.
Proposed Regulations: The definition of graduate center in Sec.
647.7 would be revised to reference the definitions provided in
sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.
Reasons: This proposed change is necessary to correct incorrect
cross-references.
Groups Underrepresented in Graduate School
Statute: Section 402E(d)(2) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA,
specifically identifies Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native
American Pacific Islanders as groups underrepresented in graduate
education.
Current Regulations: The definition of groups underrepresented in
graduate school in current Sec. 647.7(b) includes Black (non-
Hispanic), Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaskan Native.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to modify Sec. 647.7(b) to
add Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native American Pacific
Islanders to the list of groups underrepresented in graduate education.
Consistent with section 402E(d)(2) of the HEA, the proposed definition
would reference the definition of Alaska Native in section 7306 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), the
definition of Native Hawaiians in section 7207 of the ESEA, and the
definition of Native American Pacific Islanders as defined in section
320 of the HEA.
Reasons: The changes are necessary to conform to statutory changes.
Research or Scholarly Activity
Statute: Section 402E(b) of the HEA requires McNair grantees to
provide opportunities for students to participate in research and other
scholarly activities at the institution or at graduate centers designed
to provide students with effective preparation for doctoral study.
Section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA, which includes the outcome criteria
for the McNair program, also refers to the provision of appropriate
scholarly research activities for students served by the McNair
program.
Current Regulations: The term research and scholarly activities is
not defined in current Sec. 647.7.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 647.7 would define research
and scholarly activity as an educational activity that is more rigorous
than is typically available to undergraduates in a classroom setting,
that is definitive in its start and end dates, contains appropriate
benchmarks for completion of various components, and is conducted under
the guidance of an appropriate faculty member with experience in the
relevant discipline.
Reasons: We are proposing the addition of the definition of
research and scholarly activity to provide for a clear and consistent
understanding of the term. Because the term is used in the outcome
criteria that will be used to evaluate a grantee's performance under
the McNair program, it is important that grantees understand what
constitutes research and scholarly activities. The proposed definition
is similar to the one currently used in the McNair annual performance
report and the McNair grant application package.
Number of Applications (Sec. 647.10)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to the number of applications that
an entity can submit under the McNair program in the Number of
Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit to Serve Different Campuses
and Different Populations section of the preamble.
Making New Grants (Sec. 647.20)
Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the HEA requires the Secretary to
consider, when making Federal TRIO grants, each applicant's prior
experience (PE) of high quality service delivery under the program for
which funds are sought. Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now identifies the specific outcome
criteria to be used to determine an entity's PE under the McNair
program (see section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA). The HEA does not
establish specific procedures for awarding PE points.
Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the Secretary had the discretion to
decide whether or not to consider an application from an applicant that
carried out a project involving the fraudulent use of program funds.
The HEOA amended the HEA to eliminate that discretion and prohibit the
Secretary from considering an application from such a party.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 647.20 specifies the procedures
the Secretary uses to make new grants. Section 647.20(a)(2) needs to be
expanded to specify the procedures the Secretary will use to award PE
points.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 647.20 would be expanded to
specify the procedures the Secretary would use to award PE points. We
are proposing that the Secretary evaluate the PE of an applicant for
each of the three project years as designated by the Secretary in the
Federal Register notice inviting applications. We also propose that an
applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the three years for
which the annual performance report was submitted. The average of the
scores for the three project years will be the final PE score for the
applicant.
We also propose to amend the wording in Sec. 647.20(d) to specify
that the Secretary will not make a new grant to an applicant if the
applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec. 647.20(a)(2) to provide
more transparency in the process the Secretary will use to award PE
points. We also are proposing to amend Sec. 647.20(d) to reflect the
statutory change that provides that the Secretary may not consider an
application from an applicant that carried out a project involving the
fraudulent use of program funds.
Selection Criteria (Sec. 647.21)
Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA, as amended by section
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, requires the Secretary to use specific outcome
criteria to measure the performance of Federal TRIO grants, including
those under the McNair program. Specifically, pursuant to section
402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA, the Secretary must measure the performance of
McNair grantees by examining the extent to which the grantee met or
exceeded the grant's objectives (as established in the grantee's
approved application) regarding: (1) The delivery of service to the
total number of students served by the program, as agreed upon by the
entity and the Secretary for the period; (2) the provision of
appropriate scholarly and research activities for the students served
by the program; (3) the acceptance and enrollment of these students in
graduate programs; and (4) the continued enrollment of such students in
graduate study and the attainment of doctoral degrees by former program
participants. These statutory
[[Page 13849]]
changes necessitate a change in the grant selection criteria for
``Objectives'' (Sec. 647.21(b)).
Current Regulations (Objectives): Current Sec. 647.21 specifies
the selection criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application
for a McNair grant. This regulation does not reflect the changes made
by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec. 647.21(b) to
provide that, in evaluating McNair applications, the Secretary
considers the quality of the applicant's proposed objectives on the
basis of the extent to which they are both ambitious and attainable,
given the project's plan of operation, budget, and other resources. We
propose to distribute nine points in the following manner: (1) Two
points for research; (2) three points for enrollment in a graduate
program; (3) two points for continued enrollment in graduate study; and
(4) two points for doctoral degree attainment.
Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec. 647.21(b) to reflect the
changes made to section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA by section 403(a)(5)
of the HEOA regarding the outcome criteria to be used to measure
performance of the McNair program. We are proposing to reflect the
statutory McNair outcome criteria in Sec. 647.21(b) in the selection
criteria because we believe that the focus at the outset of the McNair
discretionary grant process (i.e., evaluating applications using McNair
selection criteria) should reflect the ultimate outcomes the McNair
program is designed to attain.
Moreover, section 402A(f)(4) of the HEA requires the Secretary to
measure the performance of the grantee during the grant period based on
a comparison of the targets agreed upon for the outcome criteria
established in the applicant's approved application to the actual
results achieved during the grant period. For this reason, we believe
it is appropriate to reflect the outcome criteria from section
402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA in the selection criteria for the McNair
program.
Outcome criteria are also used to evaluate an applicant's PE and
assign PE points to an application. We discuss the statutory authority,
current regulations, proposed regulations, and reasons for changes to
evaluating an applicant's PE in the Evaluating Prior Experience--
Outcome Criteria section of the preamble.
Prior Experience Criteria (Sec. 647.22)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for changes to the PE criteria under the
McNair program in the TRIO Outcome Criteria--Prior Experience section
of this preamble.
Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants (Sec.
647.24)
We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed
regulations, and reasons for adding a review process for unsuccessful
TRIO applicants under the McNair program in the Review Process for
Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants section of this preamble.
Allowable Costs (Sec. 647.30)
Statute: Section 402E(f) of the HEA provides that students
participating in research under a McNair project may receive an award
that includes a stipend not to exceed $2,800 per year. The statute does
not address the use of grant funds to purchase equipment.
Current Regulations: Under current Sec. 647.30(b) of the
regulations the maximum stipend for students participating in research
is $2,400. Current Sec. 647.30(d) of the regulations requires a
grantee to obtain approval from the Secretary to use McNair funds to
purchase computer and other equipment.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to increase the maximum
stipend amount in Sec. 647.30(b) to $2,800. We also are proposing to
revise paragraph (d) to allow grantees to use grant funds for the
purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware for participant
development, project administration, and recordkeeping without prior
approval from the Secretary.
Reasons: The change in the maximum stipend amount is necessary to
conform to the statute. We discuss the reasons for permitting a McNair
project to purchase computer equipment without prior approval in the
Changes to the Allowable Costs section of the TS preamble.
Part 694--Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate
Programs (GEAR UP)
Funding Rules
Statute: None.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 694.1 describes how the
Secretary calculates the maximum amount that the Secretary may award
each fiscal year to a Partnership or a State under the GEAR UP program.
Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to amend current
Sec. 694.1 to clarify that the Secretary may establish in a notice
published in the Federal Register the maximum amount that may be
awarded for each fiscal year to any GEAR UP Partnership grantee.
Although the Secretary already has the authority to set a maximum award
for a grant under 34 CFR 75.101(a)(2) and 75.104 of the Education
Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), the proposed
provision would provide explicit regulatory authority for the Secretary
to set a maximum award for GEAR UP Partnership grants. Under current
Sec. 694.1, the Secretary already sets a maximum award for State GEAR
UP grants by publication of a notice in the Federal Register.
Proposed Sec. 694.1(a) would also specify that the maximum amount
for which a Partnership may apply may not exceed the lesser of the
maximum amount established by the Secretary, if applicable, or, as in
Sec. 694.1(a) as currently exists, the amount calculated by
multiplying $800 by the number of students the Partnership proposes to
serve that year, as stated in the Partnership's plan.
Reasons: Although the Secretary already has the authority to set a
maximum award for GEAR UP Partnership grants under 34 CFR 75.101(a)(2)
and 75.104, the proposed changes to Sec. 694.1(a) would provide
explicit regulatory authority for the Secretary to set a maximum award
for GEAR UP Partnership grants. Our proposal would apprise the public
of the Secretary's authority in this area by having Sec. 694.1 address
establishment of a maximum award for both State grants and Partnership
grants.
We propose to keep the $800 per student cap in Sec. 694.1(a),
because regardless of whether the Secretary decides to set a maximum
Partnership award through a notice published in the Federal Register,
we believe that it is important to ensure that the amount of a grant is
proportionate to the number of students served and that excessive costs
are discouraged. The $800 per student cap has proven to be sufficient
for current GEAR UP Partnership grantees, and its retention ensures
some consistency across grants with regard to the intensity of services
provided to students.
Changes in the Cohort
Statute: Sections 404B(d) and 404C(a)(2)(F) of the HEA, as amended,
address the cohort approach but do not specify which students a State
or Partnership must serve when there are changes in the cohort.
Section 404B(d) of the HEA continues to provide that, under the
cohort approach, Partnership grantees must provide services to (1) at
least one grade level of students, beginning not later than seventh
grade, in a participating
[[Page 13850]]
school that has a seventh grade and 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 or, (2) if a State or
a Partnership determines that it would promote the effectiveness of a
program, an entire grade level of students, beginning not later than
seventh grade, who reside in public housing as defined in section
3(b)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937. Under section
404C(a)(2)(F) of the HEA, as amended by section 404(c)(2) of the HEOA,
a State that chooses to use a cohort approach or a Partnership must
include in its application a description of how it will define the
cohorts of students to be served, and how it will serve the cohorts
through grade 12.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 694.4 describes which students a
State or Partnership must serve when there are changes in the cohort.
Specifically, if not all of the students in the cohort attend the same
school after the cohort completes the last grade level offered by the
school at which the cohort began to receive GEAR UP services, it
requires a State or a Partnership to continue to provide GEAR UP
services to at least those students in the cohort who attend
participating schools that enroll a substantial majority of the
students in the cohort.
Proposed Regulations: The Department is proposing to amend Sec.
694.4 to provide that if not all students in the cohort attend the same
school after the cohort completes the last grade level offered by the
school at which the cohort began to receive GEAR UP services, a
Partnership or a State must continue to provide GEAR UP services to at
least those students in the cohort who attend one or more participating
schools that together enroll a substantial majority of the students in
the cohort.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec. 694.4 in this
manner in response to a request by the non-Federal negotiators to
clarify who a grantee must serve if not all students in the cohort
attend the same school after the cohort completes the last grade level
offered by the school at which the cohort began to receive GEAR UP
services.
Changes to Matching Requirements
Statute: Section 404C(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by section
404(c)(3) of the HEOA, changes the GEAR UP matching requirement by
permitting a GEAR UP grantee's required matching funds from State,
local, institutional or private funds to be accrued over the full
duration of the grant award period provided that the grantee makes
``substantial progress'' towards meeting the matching requirement in
each year of the grant award period.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 694.7 is the regulatory
provision addressing matching fund requirements and it does not reflect
changes made to the HEA by the HEOA. Current Sec. 694.7(a)(2) requires
that the Partnership comply with the matching percentage stated in its
application for each year of the project period. In addition, Sec.
694.7(b)(2) contains authority for a Partnership with three or fewer
IHEs as members to have a matching requirement of 30 to 50 percent of
total project costs.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 694.7(a)(2) would require that
a GEAR UP grantee make substantial progress towards meeting the
matching percentage stated in its approved application for each year of
the project period. We would remove the provision regarding reduction
of the match requirement for Partnerships with three or fewer IHEs from
current Sec. 694.7(b), and address both reduction and waiver of the
matching requirement in new proposed Sec. Sec. 694.8 and 694.9.
Reasons: The Department proposes to amend Sec. 694.7 and to
address reduction and waiver of the matching requirement in new
proposed Sec. Sec. 694.8 and 694.9 to more closely align these
regulations with the corresponding matching requirements in the HEA,
and to ensure that the regulations are clear and understandable to the
public. The following section entitled Waiver of Matching Requirements
discusses, in more detail, the statutory basis and rationale for the
Department's proposal to add new Sec. Sec. 694.8 and 694.9.
Waiver of Matching Requirements
Statute: Section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA, prior to the enactment of
the HEOA, allowed the Secretary to modify, by regulation, the matching
requirement applicable to a Partnership. Section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA,
as amended by section 404(c)(3)(C) of the HEOA, retains this provision
and also authorizes the Secretary to approve the following types of
requests for reduction to the matching requirement: (1) Requests made
at the time of an application, if the applicant demonstrates a
significant economic hardship that precludes it from meeting the
matching requirement, (2) requests made at the time of application by a
Partnership applicant to count contributions to scholarship funds
established under section 404E of the HEA on a two-to-one basis, and
(3) requests made by a grantee demonstrating that the matching funds
identified in its approved application are no longer available, and the
grantee has exhausted all revenues for replacing these matching funds.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 694.7(b)(2) specifies the
circumstances under which the Department permits an eligible
Partnership grantee to reduce its obligation to match funds to less
than 50 percent of the total cost over the project period. It does not
reflect changes made to section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: As discussed in the previous section, the
Department proposes to remove paragraph (b)(2) from current Sec.
694.7. The Department also proposes to add new 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?). Proposed Sec. 694.8(a) would provide that the Secretary
may approve a Partnership applicant's request for a waiver of up to 75
percent of the matching requirement for up to two years if the
applicant demonstrates in its application a significant economic
hardship that stems from a specific, exceptional, or uncontrollable
event, such as a natural disaster, that has a devastating effect on the
members of the Partnership and the community in which the project would
operate. For purposes of this preamble, we refer to this waiver as the
``75 Percent Waiver.''
Proposed Sec. 694.8(b) would provide that the Secretary may
approve a Partnership applicant's request to waive up to 50 percent of
the matching requirement for up to two years if the applicant
demonstrates in its application a pre-existing and an on-going
significant economic hardship that precludes the applicant from meeting
its matching requirement. For purposes of this preamble, we refer to
this waiver as the ``50 Percent Waiver.'' Proposed Sec. 694.8(b)(2)
would specify that in determining whether an applicant is experiencing
an on-going economic hardship that is significant enough to justify a
50 Percent Waiver, the Secretary considers documentation of applicable
factors and lists examples of these factors. Proposed Sec. 694.8(b)(3)
would state that, at the time of application, the Secretary may provide
tentative approval of an applicant's request for a 50 Percent Waiver
for all remaining years of the project period. This proposed section
would specify that grantees that receive tentative approval of a 50
Percent Waiver for more than two years under Sec. 694.8(b)(3) must
submit to the Secretary every two years, by such time as the Secretary
may direct, documentation that demonstrates that (1) the significant
economic hardship upon which the waiver was
[[Page 13851]]
granted still exists; and (2) the grantee tried diligently, but
unsuccessfully, to obtain contributions needed to meet the matching
requirement.
Consistent with section 404C(c)(1) of the HEA, proposed Sec.
694.8(c) would provide that the Secretary may approve a Partnership
applicant's request in its application to match its contributions to
its scholarship fund, established under section 404E of the HEA, on the
basis of two non-Federal dollars for every one Federal dollar of GEAR
UP funds.
Also, similar to provisions in current Sec. 694.7(b)(2), proposed
Sec. 694.8(d) would provide that the Secretary may approve a request
by a Partnership applicant that has three or fewer institutions of
higher education as members to waive up to 70 percent of the matching
requirement if the Partnership applicant meets the criteria set forth
in proposed Sec. 694.8(d)(1) through (3).
We propose to add new 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?). This section
would provide that after a grant is awarded, the Secretary may approve
a Partnership grantee's written request for a waiver of up to (1) 50
percent of the matching requirement for up to two years if the grantee
demonstrates that the matching contributions described for those two
years in the grantee's approved application are no longer available and
the grantee has exhausted all funds and sources of potential
contributions for replacing the matching funds; or (2) 75 percent of
the matching requirement for up to two years if the grantee
demonstrates that matching contributions from the original application
are no longer available due to an uncontrollable event, such as a
natural disaster, that has a devastating economic effect on members of
the Partnership and the community in which the project would operate.
Proposed Sec. 694.9(b) would also specify that in determining
whether the grantee has exhausted all funds and sources of potential
contributions for replacing matching funds, the Secretary considers the
grantee's documentation of key factors. This section would include a
list of examples of these factors (e.g., a reduction of revenues from
State government, County government, or the local educational agency;
an increase in local unemployment rates; and significant reductions in
the operating budgets of institutions of higher education that are
participating in the grant).
Proposed Sec. 694.9(c) would provide that if a grantee has
received one or more waivers under Sec. Sec. 694.8 or 694.9, the
grantee may request an additional waiver of the matching requirement
under Sec. 694.9 no earlier than 60 days before the expiration of the
grantee's existing waiver. Finally, proposed Sec. 694.9(d) would
provide that the Secretary may grant additional waiver requests for up
to 50 percent of the matching requirement for a period of up to two
years upon the expiration of any previous waivers.
In order to accommodate these new proposed provisions, we propose
to redesignate current Sec. Sec. 694.8 and 694.9 as Sec. Sec. 694.10
and 694.11, respectively. We also propose to redesignate current Sec.
694.12 as Sec. 694.17. We made no substantive changes to these three
provisions when redesignating them.
Reasons: The Department is proposing to add new Sec. Sec. 694.8
and 694.9 to incorporate suggestions made by non-Federal negotiators to
(1) limit the waiver of the matching requirement to 50 to 75 percent of
the requirement; (2) limit the period of the waiver to two years,
unless the grantee reapplies for another waiver; and (3) create a
multiple-tiered system for different types of waiver requests. We are
proposing this new regulatory language because we believe that it will
help preserve the integrity of the GEAR UP program as a partnership
model with a significant matching requirement component, and balance
this aspect of the program with fair, understandable, statutorily-based
waiver options. In this regard, the 50 Percent and 75 Percent Waivers
that we are proposing are consistent with the views expressed by the
non-Federal negotiators. Also consistent with their views, we believe
that while a maximum 50 percent waiver is reasonable for projects with
partners and communities facing chronic economic difficulties, a larger
waiver is appropriate where areas are facing significant economic
hardship due to events such as a natural disaster. In accordance with
the recommendation of the non-Federal negotiators, we propose a maximum
75 percent waiver for these circumstances, believing as the non-Federal
negotiators expressed, that with the availability of in-kind matching
contributions the Partnership should still be able to provide a 25
percent annual matching contribution.
Proposed Sec. 694.8(b)(3) would specify that, at the time of
application, the Secretary may provide tentative approval of an
applicant's request for a 50 Percent Waiver for the entire project
period. This would allow an applicant that meets the conditions for a
waiver to apply for a grant without needing to identify additional
sources of match funding for the later years of the project period. On-
going significant economic hardship may preclude an applicant from
being able to identify additional sources of match funding in a
proposed budget for later years of the project and we do not believe
that this should bar the applicant from obtaining a grant. Proposed
Sec. 694.8(b)(3) would require that grantees who received tentative
approval of a waiver for more than two years submit documentation to
the Secretary every two years with regard to continuation of
significant economic hardship and efforts to meet the matching
requirement. We believe that this proposal both will encourage grantees
to seek alternative sources of match during their project period, and
help the Department to provide appropriate oversight concerning the 50
Percent Waiver.
The non-Federal negotiators provided examples of factors the
Secretary may consider in determining whether to provide an applicant
or grantee a 50 Percent Waiver of the matching requirement. The
Department incorporated the non-Federal negotiators' examples in
proposed Sec. Sec. 694.8(b)(2) and 694.9(b) because we believe that
these examples will help the public, including applicants and grantees,
to better understand the process for seeking a waiver of a portion of a
GEAR UP Partnership matching requirement, and the Department's
expectations in reviewing any waiver requests. We included regulatory
language regarding additional waiver requests in proposed Sec.
694.9(c) and (d) to allow grantees that continue to meet the conditions
for a waiver to request and receive a waiver for a period of up to two
additional years. Because no waiver of more than two years would be
granted, the Secretary has an opportunity at least every two years to
review whether a grantee continues to meet the conditions for a waiver.
The Department is proposing to divide the matching provisions into
two separate sections, with provisions for Partnership applicants in
Sec. 694.8 and provisions for Partnership grantees in Sec. 694.9 to
make these provisions easier to follow and understand. The Department
also is proposing to move the waiver provision in current Sec.
694.7(b)(2) to new Sec. 694.8, and is proposing slight modifications
to the wording of that provision so that it aligns with the new waiver
provisions in proposed Sec. Sec. 694.8 and 694.9.
Scholarship Component
Statute: Section 404E(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by section
404(e) of the HEOA, requires GEAR UP grantees
[[Page 13852]]
to use not less than 25 percent and not more than 50 percent of GEAR UP
grant funds for activities described in section 404D of the HEA, i.e.,
required and permissible pre-college or university activities, (except
for the activity described in section 404D(a)(4) of the HEA, i.e., a
State's use of funds for scholarships under section 404E), with the
remainder of the funds to be used for a scholarship program under
section 404E of the HEA. However, section 404E(b)(2) allows a GEAR UP
grantee to use more than 50 percent of GEAR UP grant funds for pre-
college or university activities if (1) it demonstrates that it has
another means of providing the students with the financial assistance
described in section 404E of the HEA, and (2) describes these means in
its project application.
Section 404E(c) of the HEA, as amended by section 404(e) of the
HEOA, mandates that each grantee providing scholarships under section
404E must provide information on the eligibility requirements for the
scholarships to all participating students upon the students' entry
into the GEAR UP program.
Section 404(e) of the HEOA amended section 404E(d) of the HEA
regarding the minimum amount of a GEAR UP scholarship. Now the HEA
states that the minimum amount of a GEAR UP scholarship for each fiscal
year is the minimum Federal Pell Grant award under section 401 of the
HEA for that award year. Prior law had made the minimum scholarship
amount for each fiscal year the lesser of 75 percent of the average
cost of attendance for an in-State student in a 4-year instructional
program at an IHE in each State or the maximum Federal Pell grant for
that year.
Section 404E(e)(1) and (2) of the HEA, as amended by section 404(e)
of the HEOA, provides that States that receive a GEAR UP grant must
hold in reserve funds for scholarships for eligible students, as
defined in section 404E(g) of the HEA, in an amount that is not less
than the minimum scholarship amount multiplied by the number of
students that the State estimates will (1) complete a secondary school
diploma, its recognized equivalent, or another recognized alternative
standard for individuals with disabilities, and (2) enroll in an IHE.
We address the definition of an ``eligible student'' in our discussion
of proposed Sec. 694.13(d) under the ``Proposed Regulations'' part of
this section.
Finally, section 401(c) of Public Law 111-39, technical amendments
to the HEOA enacted into law on July 1, 2009, amended section 404 of
the HEOA to provide that section 404E(e) of the HEA is not applicable
to grants made before August 14, 2008, except that the recipient of a
grant made prior to that date may elect to apply the requirements
contained in section 404E if the recipient informs the Secretary of
this election. Section 401(c) of Public Law 111-39 goes on to provide
that a grant recipient may make this election only if the election does
not decrease the amount of the scholarship promised to an individual
student under the grant.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 694.10 is the regulatory
provision that specifies the requirements for GEAR UP scholarships
under the HEA, as previously authorized. Current Sec. 694.11 provides
that GEAR UP Partnership grantees that do not participate in the GEAR
UP scholarship component may provide financial assistance for
postsecondary education with GEAR UP funds, or non-Federal funds used
to comply with the matching requirement, to students who participate in
the early intervention component of GEAR UP if (1) the financial
assistance is directly related to, and in support of, other activities
of the Partnership under the early intervention component, and (2) it
complies with the requirements for scholarship awards in Sec. 694.10.
These sections do not reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the
statutorily required priorities.
Proposed Regulations: To accommodate the proposed addition of
regulatory provisions, as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the
Department proposes to redesignate current Sec. Sec. 694.10 and 694.11
as proposed Sec. Sec. 694.13 and 694.15. We also propose to add a new
Sec. 694.12 and Sec. 694.14 to address the changes made by section
401(c) of Public Law 111-39.
Specifically, proposed Sec. 694.12(a) would provide that (1) State
grantees must establish or maintain a financial assistance program that
awards section 404E scholarships to students in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 694.13 or Sec. 694.14, as applicable, and (2)
Partnership grantees that choose to award scholarships to eligible
students pursuant to section 404E of the HEA must likewise comply with
the requirements of Sec. 694.13 or Sec. 694.14, as applicable.
Consistent with section 401(c) of Public Law 111-39, proposed Sec.
694.12(b) would clarify that a State or Partnership grantee providing
section 404E scholarships with GEAR UP funds that were awarded to it
prior to August 14, 2008, must provide such scholarships in accordance
with the requirements of Sec. 694.13 unless it (1) elects to provide
the scholarships in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 694.14
(which governs grantees with initial GEAR UP awards made on or after
August 14, 2008), and (2) pursuant to Sec. 694.12(b)(2), notifies the
Secretary of this election, and ensure that the election does not
decrease the amount of a GEAR UP scholarship that had been promised to
a student. Finally, proposed Sec. 694.12(c) would clarify that a State
or Partnership grantee making section 404E scholarship awards using
GEAR UP funds that were awarded on or after August 14, 2008, must
provide such scholarships in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
694.14.
Newly redesignated Sec. 694.13 would provide basic requirements
for section 404E scholarships for grantees who received their initial
GEAR UP grant awards prior to August 14, 2008, and who choose not to
make the election described in the paragraph above. Specifically, Sec.
694.13(a) would provide that (1) the maximum scholarship amount that an
eligible student may receive under this section must be established by
the grantee; (2) the minimum scholarship amount that an eligible
student receives in a fiscal year pursuant to this section must not be
less than the lesser of (a) 75 percent of the average cost of
attendance for an in-State student, in a four-year program of
instruction, at public IHEs in the student's State, or (b) the maximum
Federal Pell Grant award under section 401 of the HEA for the award
year in which the scholarship is awarded; and (3) if an eligible
student who is awarded a GEAR UP scholarship attends an IHE on a less
than full-time basis during any award year, the State or Partnership
awarding the GEAR UP scholarship may reduce the scholarship amount, but
the percentage reduction in the scholarship may not be greater than the
percentage reduction in tuition and fees charged to that student.
Like Sec. 694.10(e) of the current regulations, proposed Sec.
694.13(b) would provide that scholarships made in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 694.13 may not be considered for the purpose of
awarding Federal grant assistance under title IV of the HEA. Proposed
Sec. 694.13(b), like current Sec. 694.10(c), would go on to clarify
that in no case may the total amount of student financial assistance
awarded to a student under title IV of the HEA exceed the student's
total cost of attendance.
Proposed Sec. 694.13(c)(1) would specify that grantees providing
section 404E scholarship awards in accordance with Sec. 694.13 must
award GEAR UP scholarships first to students who will receive, or are
eligible to receive, a
[[Page 13853]]
Federal Pell Grant during the award year in which the GEAR UP
scholarship is being awarded. Proposed Sec. 694.13(c)(2) would specify
that if a grantee providing section 404E scholarship awards in
accordance with Sec. 694.13 has funds remaining after awarding
scholarships to students under Sec. 694.13(c)(1), it may award GEAR UP
scholarships to other eligible students (i.e., students who are not
eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant) after considering the need of
those students for GEAR UP scholarships. These proposed provisions are
similar to Sec. 694.10(b)(1) and (2) of the current regulations.
Proposed Sec. 694.13(d) would provide that for purposes of Sec.
694.13, an eligible student is a student who (1) Is less than 22 years
old at the time of award of the student's first GEAR UP scholarship;
(2) has received a secondary school diploma or its recognized
equivalent on or after January 1, 1993; (3) is enrolled or accepted for
enrollment in a program of undergraduate instruction at an IHE that is
located within the State's boundaries, except that, at the grantee's
option, a State or a Partnership may offer scholarships to students who
attend IHE outside the State; and (4) has participated in the
activities under Sec. Sec. 694.21 or 694.22.
Proposed Sec. 694.13(e) (like proposed Sec. 694.14(d)) would
provide that States using a priority approach may award scholarships
under Sec. 694.13(a) to eligible students identified by priority at
any time during the grant award period rather than reserving
scholarship funds for use only in the seventh year of a project or
after the grant award period.
Proposed Sec. 694.13(f) would provide that a State or a
Partnership that provides scholarship awards in accordance with Sec.
694.13 must award continuation scholarships in successive award years
to each student who received an initial scholarship and who is enrolled
or accepted for enrollment in a program of undergraduate instruction at
an IHE. This provision is similar to current Sec. 694.10(d).
New Sec. 694.14 would establish requirements for section 404E
scholarship awards made by grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards
were made on or after August 14, 2008. Proposed Sec. 694.14(a) would
provide that (1) the maximum scholarship amount that an eligible
student may receive under section 404E must be established by the
grantee; (2) the minimum scholarship amount that an eligible student
receives in a fiscal year must not be less than the minimum Federal
Pell Grant award under section 401 of the HEA at the time of award; and
(3) if an eligible student who is awarded a GEAR UP scholarship attends
an IHE on a less than full-time basis during any award year, the State
or Partnership awarding the GEAR UP scholarship may reduce the
scholarship amount, but in no case may the percentage reduction in the
scholarship be greater than the percentage reduction in tuition and
fees charged to that student.
Proposed Sec. 694.14(b) would repeat the description of eligible
student that we propose in Sec. 694.13(d), except that the fourth
element of proposed Sec. 694.14(b) would differ from proposed Sec.
694.13(d)(4). The fourth element of section 694.14(b) would specify
that the student must have participated in the activities required
under Sec. 694.21 while the fourth element of Sec. 694.13(d) would
require that the student participated in activities under Sec. Sec.
694.21 or 694.22.
Proposed Sec. 694.14(c) would provide that (1) by the time
students who have received services from a State grant have completed
the twelfth grade, a State that has not received a waiver under section
404E(b)(2) of the HEA of the requirement to spend at least 50 percent
of its GEAR UP funds on scholarships must have in reserve an amount
that is not less than the minimum Federal Pell Grant multiplied by the
number of students the State estimates will enroll in an institution of
higher education; (2) consistent with Sec. Sec. 694.14(a) and
694.16(a), States must use funds held in reserve to make scholarships
to eligible students; (3) scholarships must be made to all students who
are eligible under the definition in Sec. 694.14(b); and (4) a grantee
may not impose additional eligibility criteria that would have the
effect of limiting or denying a scholarship to an eligible student.
Proposed Sec. 694.14(d) would specify that States using a priority
approach may award scholarships under Sec. 694.14(a) to eligible
students identified by priority at any time during the grant award
period rather than reserving scholarship funds for use only in the
seventh year of a project or after the grant award period.
Proposed Sec. 694.14(e) would require States awarding scholarships
under this provision to provide information on the eligibility
requirements for the scholarships to all participating students upon
the students' entry into the GEAR UP program.
Proposed Sec. 694.14(f) would specify that a State must provide
scholarship funds as described in this section to all eligible students
who attend an IHE in the State, and may provide these scholarship funds
to eligible students who attend IHEs outside the State.
Proposed Sec. 694.14(g) would permit a State or a Partnership that
chooses to participate in the scholarship component of the GEAR UP
program in accordance with section 404E of the HEA to award
continuation scholarships in successive award years to each student who
received an initial scholarship and who is enrolled or accepted for
enrollment in a program of undergraduate instruction at an IHE.
Proposed Sec. 694.14(h), like proposed Sec. 694.13(b) and current
Sec. 694.10(e), would specify that a GEAR UP scholarship provided
under section 404E of the HEA may not be considered in the
determination of a student's eligibility for other grant assistance
provided under title IV of the HEA, except that in no case may the
total amount of student financial assistance awarded to a student under
title IV of the HEA exceed the student's total cost of attendance.
Finally, we would redesignate current Sec. 694.11 as Sec. 694.15,
and would revise it to provide that a GEAR UP Partnership that does not
participate in the GEAR UP scholarship component may provide financial
assistance for postsecondary education with non-Federal funds in
satisfaction of the matching requirement in section 404C(b) of the HEA.
Reasons: The Department is proposing to revise newly redesignated
Sec. 694.13 and add new Sec. Sec. 694.12 and 694.14 to implement
section 404E of the HEA, as amended by section 404(e) of the HEOA, and
section 401(c) of Public Law 111-39. Proposed Sec. 694.12 would
specify under what conditions State and Partnership GEAR UP grantees
make section 404E scholarship awards.
Specifically, proposed Sec. 694.12(a) would identify the different
rules that State GEAR UP grantees must follow with regard to these
awards, and that Partnership GEAR UP grantees must follow if they
choose to make GEAR UP scholarship awards under section 404E. Proposed
Sec. 694.12(b) would (1) distinguish between section 404E scholarship
awards made by grantees who received their initial GEAR UP grant awards
prior to August 14, 2008, and section 404E scholarship awards made by
grantees who received their initial GEAR UP grant awards on or after
August 14, 2008, and (2) identify the applicable regulatory provision
(i.e., Sec. 694.13 or Sec. 694.14) for each group of grantees.
In doing so, Sec. 694.12(b) and (c) implement section 401(c) of
Public Law 111-39, which makes section 404E scholarship requirements
inapplicable to grantees who received their initial award before that
date unless a grantee elected to apply the new requirements
[[Page 13854]]
without decreasing the amount of scholarship provided to individual
students. In this regard, proposed Sec. 694.12(b)(2) would specify
when and how GEAR UP grantees who received initial grant awards prior
to August 14, 2008, may elect to apply the rules for GEAR UP grantees
that received their initial grant awards on or after August 14, 2008.
Public Law 111-39 does not address this matter. We are proposing to add
these provisions to ensure the public understands the responsibilities
of, and options available to, all State and Partnership grantees with
regard to the scholarship component of the GEAR UP program.
Consistent with section 401(c) of Public Law 111-39, we propose to
revise newly redesignated Sec. 694.13 to identify the scholarship
requirements governing State and Partnership GEAR UP grantees who
received their initial awards prior to August 14, 2008. The provisions
in proposed Sec. 694.13 make the requirements in section 404E as it
existed prior to the effective date of the HEOA applicable to such
scholarship awards unless a grantee chooses to make the election that
section 401(c) authorizes. As discussed more fully below in our reasons
for proposing Sec. 694.14(d), we propose adding a new paragraph (e) to
these provisions, which would clarify that a State using a priority
approach to select participating students may award scholarships to
eligible students at any time during the grant award period (rather
than holding these funds in reserve until the seventh year of the grant
award period). We do so because a State selecting students using the
priority approach may provide initial GEAR UP services much later than
seventh grade, and so would need to be able to award scholarships much
earlier in its multiyear project period than would a State grantee that
used a cohort approach to select students.
Similarly, we are proposing to add a new Sec. 694.14 to implement
and clarify the scholarship requirements in section 404E of the HEA, as
amended, that apply to scholarship awards made by grantees who received
initial GEAR UP awards on or after August 14, 2008. We are proposing to
include in Sec. 694.14(a)(1) and (a)(2) regulatory language regarding
maximum and minimum scholarship amounts to reflect the language in
404E(d) of the HEA, as amended by section 404(e) of the HEOA. As with
proposed Sec. 694.13(a)(3), proposed Sec. 694.14(a)(3) would retain
the requirement in current Sec. 694.10(a)(2) regarding the extent a
scholarship awarded to a student attending an IHE on less than a full-
time basis may be reduced.
We are also proposing to incorporate the statutory definition of an
eligible student from section 404E(g) of the HEA in both proposed Sec.
694.13(d) and Sec. 694.14(b). Except for removing the phrase ``early
intervention'' before the word ``activities'' in the fourth element of
the definition and requiring that eligible students have participated
in the new required activities under section 404D(a) (see proposed
Sec. 694.21) rather than in what had been the early intervention
activities, section 404(e) of the HEOA did not change the definition of
this term from what it had been in section 404E(d) of the HEA, as
previously authorized. While we did not include a definition of
eligible student in the existing regulations, we believe that including
a definition of the term that reflects the statutory definition in
section 404E(g) of the HEA in both proposed regulations would make them
clearer and more understandable for the public.
The regulatory language the Department is proposing to include in
Sec. 694.14(c)(1) and (c)(2) regarding funds that a State grantee must
hold in reserve for GEAR UP scholarships reflects statutory
requirements in section 404E(b), (d), and (e) of the HEA, as amended by
section 404(e) of the HEOA. In addition, in response to a request by
non-Federal negotiators, we are proposing to clarify, in Sec.
694.14(c)(3), that grantees must provide scholarships to all eligible
students under section 404E of the HEA. In this regard, we agree with
the non-Federal negotiators that the new minimum scholarship provision
in section 404E(d) of the HEA is intended to ensure that all grantees
(that receive initial awards on or after August 14, 2008) provide
scholarships to each eligible student in an amount that is at least the
Federal Pell Grant minimum. For this reason, we also are proposing in
Sec. 694.14(c)(3) to prohibit a grantee from establishing additional
eligibility criteria that would have the effect of limiting or denying
a scholarship to an eligible student.
We are proposing to include, in Sec. 694.14(d), regulatory
language clarifying that a State using a priority approach to select
participating students (see section 404D(d) of the HEA, as amended by
section 404(d) of the HEOA) may award scholarships to eligible students
at any time during the grant award period (rather than holding these
funds in reserve until the seventh year of the grant award period). We
do so because under the priority approach, which by law is available
only to State GEAR UP grantees, initial services may be provided much
later than seventh grade. Hence, a State grantee that selected students
using the priority approach would need to be able to award scholarships
much earlier in its multiyear project period than would a State grantee
that selected students using a cohort approach.
The Department's proposal in Sec. 694.14(e), to incorporate the
requirement that grantees provide information on eligibility
requirements for scholarships to participating students when they enter
the GEAR UP program, reflects section 404E(c) of the HEA, as amended by
404(e) of the HEOA. Similarly, its proposal in Sec. 694.14(f), that
State grantees must provide scholarships to GEAR UP students attending
IHEs in the State and may do so to students attending IHEs out-of-
State, reflects section 404E(e)(2) and (g) of the HEA, as amended by
404(e) of the HEOA. We propose both provisions to help the public
better understand the various requirements affecting GEAR UP
scholarships.
Proposed Sec. 694.14(g) would remove from the current regulations
the requirement that a State, or a Partnership that chooses to
participate in the GEAR UP scholarship component in accordance with
section 404E of the HEA, award continuation scholarships in successive
award years to each student who received an initial scholarship and who
continues to be eligible for a scholarship. Rather than mandating this
action, the proposed regulations would allow a State or Partnership to
make these awards. We are proposing this change because we believe that
there may not be sufficient funds available to provide continuation
scholarships in successive award years to every student who received an
initial scholarship and continues to be eligible for a scholarship.
Grants that have sufficient funds to provide continuation scholarships
to their students would be encouraged to do so.
Proposed Sec. 694.14(g), regarding the prohibition against
considering the amount of a GEAR UP scholarship in determining a
student's eligibility for other grant assistance under Title IV of the
HEA, and the proviso that the total amount of Federal assistance not
exceed the student's total cost of attendance, reflects new section
404E(f) of the HEA (formerly section 404E(e) of the HEA). Here again,
we propose the provision to help the public better understand the
various requirements affecting GEAR UP scholarships.
Finally, proposed Sec. 694.15 would permit a Partnership that does
not implement the section 404E scholarship component to still provide
scholarship assistance to GEAR UP students with non-Federal funds as a
matching
[[Page 13855]]
contribution. Proposed Sec. 694.15 is similar to current Sec. 694.11
with regard to non-Federal funds. However, proposed Sec. 694.15 omits
language in the existing regulation that specifically authorizes GEAR
UP Partnership grantees that do not participate in the section 404E
scholarship component to use Federal or non-Federal funds for
scholarships awards as part of their early intervention services. We
would omit this language because section 404D of the HEA, as amended by
section 404(d) of the HEOA, no longer authorizes such a use of Federal
grant funds. We propose to clarify in Sec. 694.15 that these non-
Federal funds may still be used to satisfy the matching requirement.
Redistribution or Return of Unused Scholarship Funds/Reporting on
Scholarship Monies After the Grant Period
Statute: Section 404E(e)(4)(A)(i) of the HEA, as amended by section
404(e)(5) of the HEOA, specifies that grantees may redistribute any
funds not used by eligible students within six years of their
completion of secondary school to other eligible students. Section
404E(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the HEA, as amended, now requires grantees to
return scholarship funds not used by eligible students within the
applicable timeframe and not redistributed to other eligible students
to the Secretary for distribution to other grantees.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: The Department is proposing to add new Sec.
694.16, and to provide in Sec. 694.16(a) that scholarship funds held
in reserve by States under Sec. 694.14(c) or by Partnerships under
section 404D(b)(7) of the HEA, and which are not used by an eligible
student as defined in Sec. 694.14(b) within six years of the student's
scheduled completion of secondary school, may be redistributed by the
grantee to other eligible students. Consistent with section 401(c) of
Public Law 111-39, proposed Sec. 694.16 would clarify that
requirements in this section apply only to funds reserved for section
404E scholarship awards by grantees whose (1) initial GEAR UP grant
awards were made on or after August 14, 2008, or (2) whose initial GEAR
UP grant awards were made prior to August 14, 2008, but who, pursuant
to proposed Sec. 694.12(b)(2), elect to meet the Sec. 694.14
scholarship requirements (rather than the Sec. 694.13 requirements).
To implement requirements in section 404E(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the HEA
governing return of unused funds to the Department, proposed Sec.
694.16(b) would provide that any Federal scholarship funds that are not
used by an eligible student within six years of the student's scheduled
completion of secondary school, and are not redistributed by the
grantee to other eligible students, must be returned to the Secretary
within 45 days after the six-year period for expending the scholarship
funds expires. Furthermore, proposed Sec. 694.16(c) and (d) would
provide that (1) grantees that reserve funds for scholarships must
annually furnish information, as the Secretary may require, on the
amount of Federal and non-Federal funds reserved and held for GEAR UP
scholarships and the disbursement of these scholarship funds to
eligible students until these funds are fully expended or returned to
the Secretary; and (2) a scholarship fund is subject to audit or
monitoring by authorized representatives of the Secretary throughout
the life of the fund.
Reasons: The Department proposes to add new Sec. 694.16 to
implement the mandates in 404E(e)(4)(A) of the HEA and the technical
amendments reflected in section 401(c) of Public Law 111-39, as well as
to promote reasonable fiscal oversight.
Except for two aspects of the return-of-funds provision in proposed
Sec. 694.16(b), proposed Sec. 694.16(a) and (b) reflects the
statutory provisions in section 404E(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the HEA,
as amended. One way in which paragraph Sec. 694.16(b) supplements the
statute is the application of the requirement to Federal funds only.
While section 404E(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the HEA refers only to the return of
unused scholarship funds held in reserve, we do not believe it would be
appropriate for the Department to require the return of any unused non-
Federal funds that had been contributed to the GEAR UP scholarship
fund. For this reason, the language of proposed Sec. 694.16(b)
reflects our understanding that the statutory provision was intended to
apply only to unused Federal GEAR UP funds that a grantee holds in
reserve.
The other regulatory issue embedded in proposed Sec. 694.16(b)(2)
concerns when a grantee must return unused Federal funds held in
reserve to the Department. The Department is proposing to require the
return of Federal funds within 45 days after the six-year period for
expending the scholarship funds expires. We believe this time-frame,
which would be reflected in proposed Sec. 694.16(b), is appropriate
because the 45-day period is consistent with other Title IV, HEA
programs.
In addition, in proposed Sec. 694.16(c), the Department proposes
to require grantees to annually furnish information, as the Secretary
may require, on the amount of Federal and non-Federal funds reserved
and held for GEAR UP scholarships and the disbursement of those funds
to eligible students until these funds are fully expended or returned
to the Secretary. We believe that this requirement would increase the
accountability of grantees as well as the Department's ability to track
and monitor the large amounts of Federal funds and non-Federal matching
funds that grantees reserve for GEAR UP scholarships. We understand
that depending on the amount of scholarship funding to be disbursed
the, number of eligible recipients, and the scholarship amount each
recipient would receive, a grantee's reporting period may well extend
beyond its project period. However, grantees were to have obligated
these funds during the project period to irrevocable trusts or other
mechanisms for ultimate disbursal, and the reasonable and necessary
costs associated with providing the reports that proposed Sec.
694.16(c) would require would be legitimate administrative expenses
that grantees or those administering the scholarship funds may charge
to Federal funds held in reserve. We therefore believe it is reasonable
to expect all grantees to make arrangements for implementing proposed
Sec. 694.16 before the end of their project period.
For similar reasons, the Department also proposes in Sec.
694.16(d) to clarify that a GEAR UP scholarship fund is subject to
audit or monitoring by authorized representatives of the Secretary
throughout the life of the fund. Reasonable and necessary costs
associated with making appropriate records available for inspection
after the project period has ended would likewise be legitimate charges
against Federal funds held in reserve.
21st Century Scholar Certificates
Statute: Section 404F of the HEA, as amended by 404(f) of the HEOA,
provides that each GEAR UP grantee must provide a 21st Century Scholar
Certificate to all participating students served by the project. It
also provides that the 21st Century Scholar Certificate must be
personalized for each student and indicate the amount of Federal
financial aid for college and the estimated amount of any scholarship
provided under section 404E of the HEA, if applicable, that a student
may be eligible to receive.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 694.13 addresses 21st Century
Scholarship Certificates, but does not reflect changes
[[Page 13856]]
made to section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA by the HEOA.
Proposed Regulations: The Department is proposing to redesignate
current Sec. 694.13 as proposed Sec. 694.18 and amend newly
redesignated Sec. 694.18 to (1) specify that the grantee, rather than
the Department, will prepare the 21st Century Certificate, and (2)
provide that 21st Century Scholarship Certificates must indicate the
estimated amount of any scholarship provided under section 404E of the
HEA, if applicable, that a student may be eligible to receive.
Reasons: This amendment is necessary to reflect the changes made to
section 404F(b) of the HEA by section 404(f) of the HEOA.
Requirements Applicable to State GEAR UP Grantees That Serve Students
Under the National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership
Program (NEISP)
Statute: Section 404A of the HEA, as amended by the Higher
Education Amendments of 1998, provided that in making awards to States
under this program, the Secretary must ensure that students served
under this chapter on the day before the date of enactment of the
Higher Education Amendments of 1998 continue to receive assistance
through the completion of secondary school. This statutory requirement
no longer exists in the HEA.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 694.14 provides that any State
that receives a GEAR UP grant and that served students under the NEISP
program on October 6, 1998, must continue to provide services under
this part to those students until they complete secondary school.
Proposed Regulations: None.
Reasons: We propose to remove the requirements reflected in current
Sec. 694.14 because this regulatory provision is obsolete. The NEISP
program has not been authorized since 1998 and any students served
under that program are well beyond traditional high school age.
Priority
Statute: Section 404A(b)(3)(A) of the HEA, as amended by section
404(a)(2) of the HEOA, gives a priority in funding to a State that (1)
has carried out successful GEAR UP programs prior to enactment of the
HEOA, and (2) has a prior, demonstrated commitment to early
intervention leading to college access through collaboration and
replication of successful strategies. Section 404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA,
as amended, provides that, in making GEAR UP grant awards to States,
the Secretary must ensure that students served under the GEAR UP
program prior to the enactment of the HEOA continue to receive
assistance through the completion of secondary school.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 694.15 is the regulatory
provision that specifies the priorities the Secretary establishes for
the GEAR UP program. It does not reflect the changes made by the HEOA
to the statutorily required priorities.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would redesignate
current Sec. 694.15 (What priorities does the Secretary establish for
a GEAR UP grant?) as proposed Sec. 694.19 to accommodate the proposed
addition of other regulatory provisions, as discussed elsewhere in this
preamble. Under newly redesignated Sec. 694.19, the Secretary would
award competitive preference priority points to an eligible applicant
for a State GEAR UP grant that has both carried out a successful State
GEAR UP grant prior to August 14, 2008, and prior, demonstrated
commitment to early intervention leading to college access through
collaboration and replication of successful strategies. Under proposed
Sec. 694.19(a), whether a State GEAR UP grant is deemed successful
would be determined on the basis of data (including outcome data)
submitted by the applicant as part of its annual and final performance
reports, and the applicant's history of compliance with applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements relating to the grant.
Reasons: We are proposing to revise newly redesignated Sec.
694.19, which addresses the priorities the Secretary establishes for a
GEAR UP grant, to reflect the changes made by the HEOA to section
404A(b)(3)(A) of the HEA. In order to notify the public of how these
priorities will work, we propose to clarify that the Department will
implement these statutorily required priorities by using them as
competitive preference priorities in the award-making process. In
addition, in response to comments received from non-Federal
negotiators, we are proposing to specify in this section how the
Department will determine whether a State GEAR UP grant has been
``successful'' under section 404A(b)(3)(A)(i) of the HEA. Thus,
proposed Sec. 694.19(a) would specify that the Secretary will
determine whether a GEAR UP grant has been successful based upon data
(including outcome data) submitted as part of the applicant's annual
and final performance reports for the grant it previously carried out,
and its history of compliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements relating to that grant. The Secretary would determine the
extent to which an applicant has a ``prior, demonstrated commitment to
early intervention leading to college access through collaboration and
replication of successful strategies'' on the basis of information
included in its GEAR UP application.
More information about the award process, including the priorities
given in the competitions for State GEAR UP grants, may be included in
the notices inviting applications for the State GEAR UP grant
competitions that the Department publishes in the Federal Register.
However, we believe that general information about how the priorities
will be implemented (i.e., as competitive preference priorities), and
how the Department will assess whether an applicant has carried out a
successful State GEAR UP Grant prior to August 14, 2008, are best
addressed in the program regulations. Proposed Sec. 694.19 would
incorporate language from section 404A(b)(3)(A) of the HEA, but not the
requirement in section 404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA that the Secretary
ensure that students served by State GEAR UP grants before the
enactment of the HEOA continue to receive services through completion
of secondary school. Though this requirement appears in the same
statutory section as the priority that is given to eligible entities
for a State GEAR UP grant, the statutory language does not require the
Secretary to give a priority to eligible entities that would continue
to serve these students. The requirement in section 404a(b)(3)(B) of
the HEA is addressed in more detail under the Continuity of Student
Services section elsewhere in this preamble.
Duration of Awards
Statute: Section 404A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by section
404(a)(2) of the HEOA, provides that the Secretary may award a GEAR UP
grant for six years or, seven years in the case of a State or
Partnership that applies for a seven-year GEAR UP grant to enable it to
provide services to a student through the student's first year of
attendance at an IHE.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: The Department is proposing to add Sec.
694.20 and Sec. 694.24. Specifically, proposed Sec. 694.20(a) would
provide that the Secretary authorizes an eligible State or Partnership
to provide GEAR UP services to students attending an IHE if the State
or Partnership (1) applies for and is awarded a new award after August
14, 2008, and (2) in its application, requests a seventh year so that
it may continue to provide services to students through their first
year of
[[Page 13857]]
attendance at an IHE. Proposed Sec. 694.20(b) would specify that a
State grantee that uses a priority (rather than or in addition to a
cohort) approach to identify participating students may, consistent
with its approved application and at any time during the project
period, provide services to students during their first year of
attendance at an IHE, as long as the grantee continues to provide all
required early intervention services throughout the Federal budget
period. Proposed Sec. 694.20(c) provides that if a grantee is awarded
a seven year grant, consistent with the grantee's approved application,
during the seventh year of the grant the grantee (1) would need to
provide services to students in their first year of attendance at an
IHE; and (2) may choose to provide services to high school students who
have yet to graduate. Proposed Sec. 694.20(d) provides that grantees
that continue to provide services to students through their first year
of attendance at an IHE must, to the extent practicable, coordinate
with other campus programs, including academic support services to
enhance, not duplicate service.
Finally, Sec. 694.24 would clarify that, consistent with its
approved applications and Sec. 694.20, a GEAR UP grantee may provide
any services to students in their first year of attendance at an IHE
that will help those students succeed in school, and that do not
duplicate services otherwise available to them. The proposed regulation
would also provide a large number of specific examples of such
services.
Reasons: Throughout the negotiating rulemaking process, the
Department sought feedback from the non-Federal negotiators on: (1)
Whether we should regulate on the types of services that should be
provided by GEAR UP grantees during the seventh year of the grant and
to whom those services should be provided, (2) whether GEAR UP grantees
that are providing a seventh year of services should be required to
serve a certain percentage of their students during the seventh year,
(3) whether GEAR UP grantees should be required to collaborate with
other providers (such as TRIO grantees) when providing services during
the seventh year, and (4) whether GEAR UP grantees using a multiple
cohort approach should be able to serve students in high school during
a seventh year.
In response to comments provided by non-Federal negotiators and
tentative agreement reached by the Committee, the Department has
proposed to add new Sec. 694.20. The proposal reflects the language of
section 404A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended, which authorizes GEAR UP
funding for this seventh project year only for new grantees. We are
proposing to include, in Sec. 694.20(a), language that clarifies that
in order to be eligible for a seventh year of funding, State or
Partnership applicants must apply for and be awarded a new GEAR UP
grant after August 14, 2008, and must request in their applications a
seventh year of funding to provide services to students through their
first year of attendance at an IHE. We propose to include this
provision to be consistent with section 404A(b)(2) of the HEA, and to
ensure that grantees from the very beginning have planned to implement
strong student services in the seventh year of the grant.
Just as proposed Sec. 694.14(d) would permit grantees using the
priority approach (rather than or in addition to a cohort approach) to
provide scholarship awards before the seventh year, under Sec.
694.20(b) grantees using a priority approach would be able to serve
students in their first year of attendance at an IHE before the seventh
year of the grant. The provision would simply require that provision of
these services (1) is consistent with the grantees' approved
application, and (2) does not undermine grantees' provision of all
required services throughout the Federal budget period to GEAR UP
students still enrolled in a local educational agency. We propose the
latter condition in order not to detract from the basic purpose of GEAR
UP--to help increase the numbers of students in economically deprived
areas get ready for, and enroll in, postsecondary education.
Proposed Sec. 694.20(c) would specify that if a grantee is awarded
a seventh year of GEAR UP funding, the grantee must provide services to
students in their first year of attendance at an IHE, and may choose to
provide services to high school students who have yet to graduate.
While the provision would have limited applicability to projects that
use the cohort approach, we are proposing it specifically to allow
grantees that are serving multiple cohorts of students to continue
providing services to students who are in high school during the
seventh year of the project period. The Department believes that this
approach will encourage continuity of services to all students served
by the grant.
Non-Federal negotiators expressed the belief that proper
coordination between GEAR UP grantees and available campus programs is
important so that GEAR UP students are provided the supports they need,
and limited GEAR UP funds enhance rather than duplicate services
available to GEAR UP students after enrollment in an IHE. Some
negotiators also expressed the belief that various factors, including
the distance between IHEs graduates would attend and the grantee, the
number of different IHEs that graduates would attend, and a grantee's
efforts to obtain information about and coordinate with the providers
of other services at those IHEs, could create significant challenges.
We agree with both of these considerations, and in balancing them
propose Sec. 694.20(d). This provision would require GEAR UP grantees
that continue to provide services to students through their first year
of attendance at an IHE to coordinate, to the extent practicable, with
other campus programs to enhance, not duplicate services. We propose to
identify academic support services as one kind of other campus programs
given the pivotal role of academic support to many GEAR UP students.
Finally, we propose to add new Sec. 694.24 to provide examples of
the types of services that a grantee may provide to students in their
first year of attendance at an IHE and to list examples of these
services. We believe that this information would be helpful to
applicants and grantees as they plan and implement the type of IHE-
level services that are most appropriate for each GEAR UP student.
Required and Allowable Activities
Statute: Section 404D of the HEA, as amended by section 404(d) of
the HEOA, modifies the GEAR UP program statute by identifying certain
activities and services that GEAR UP grantees must provide, and other
activities and services that are permissible and thus ones that
projects may offer using GEAR UP funds.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: The Department is proposing to add Sec. Sec.
694.21, 694.22, 694.23, and 694.24 to address required and allowable
activities. Proposed Sec. 694.21 would identify the services that,
under section 404D(a) of the HEA, all GEAR UP projects must offer.
Consistent with section 404D(b) of the HEA, proposed Sec. 694.22 would
list examples of other services and activities that all GEAR UP
projects may provide. Proposed Sec. 694.23 would incorporate the
language from 404D(c) of the HEA, and describe additional activities
that are allowable for State GEAR UP projects. Finally, as noted
elsewhere in this preamble, proposed Sec. 694.24 would describe the
additional services that, consistent with proposed Sec. 694.20 and its
approved application, a GEAR UP project may provide to students in
their first year of attendance at an IHE.
[[Page 13858]]
Reasons: Currently, the GEAR UP program regulations do not list
examples of permissible or required GEAR UP services or activities. The
non-Federal negotiators suggested--and we agreed--that it would be
helpful for applicants and grantees if the Department included in its
GEAR UP regulations the examples of required and allowable activities
provided in section 404D of the HEA. Also, based on suggestions from
the non-Federal negotiators, we are proposing to separate the required
and permissible activities into multiple regulatory sections. We
believe that this structure will increase the clarity and
comprehensibility of the regulatory language for applicants and
grantees.
For the most part, proposed Sec. Sec. 694.21, 694.22, and 694.23
would reflect the statutory language in section 404D(a) through (c) of
the HEA. In addition to a few minor, non-substantive differences
between these regulations and that statutory provision, please note the
following.
First, section 404D(a)(4) of the HEA would require a State grantee
to provide for the scholarships under section 404E. We are concerned
that some will question whether this provision requires States to use
GEAR UP funds for GEAR UP scholarships even though section 404E(b)
permits the Secretary to waive the requirement that GEAR UP funds be
used for scholarships if the State demonstrates that it has another
means of providing the financial assistance section 404 requires, and
describes such means in its program application. To avoid any
confusion, we have included the exception for this State ``waiver'' in
proposed Sec. 694.21(d).
Furthermore, in response to the suggestion of a non-Federal
negotiator, we would clarify in proposed Sec. 694.22(e)(4) that the
work grantees may perform in assisting GEAR UP students to develop
their graduation and career plans may include activities related to
helping students with career awareness and planning activities as they
relate to a rigorous academic curriculum. We believe that providing
examples of what graduation and career plans may include would both
enhance the understanding of the public, as well as GEAR UP applicants
and grantees, of the types of services that may be provided in this
area, and foster creativity with regard to grantees' provision of
career-related services.
In addition, non-Federal negotiators expressed concerns that the
statutory language in section 404D of the HEA was ambiguous as to
whether the costs of administering a scholarship fund are allowable.
The HEA specifies in 404(C)(c)(1)(B) that the costs of administering a
scholarship program may count towards the matching requirement, but the
HEA does not speak directly to whether Federal funds may be used to
support scholarship administration. We believe that such costs of
administering authorized activities are allowable under applicable cost
principles contained in OMB Circulars A-21 and A-87. However, to
clarify the matter, we have included in proposed Sec. 694.22(g) the
express authority for grantees to use GEAR UP funds to support the
costs of administering a scholarship program.
As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we propose to add Sec.
694.24 to explain the types of services that a grantee may provide to
GEAR UP students in their first year of attendance at an IHE and to
list examples of these services. We believe that this information will
be helpful to applicants and grantees as they evaluate the type of
services that are appropriate to provide to these students.
Continuity of Student Services
Statute: Section 404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA, as amended by section
404(a)(2) of the HEOA, provides that in making awards to eligible
States, the Secretary must ensure that students served under the GEAR
UP program prior to the enactment of the HEOA continue to receive
assistance through the completion of secondary school. Section
404B(d)(1)(C) of the HEA, as amended by section 404(b) of the HEOA,
further requires the Secretary to ensure that eligible Partnerships
provide services to students who received services under a previous
GEAR UP grant award but have not yet completed the 12th grade. Prior to
the enactment of the HEOA, there was no requirement for either State or
Partnership grantees to serve students served under a previous grant.
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: The Department is proposing to add Sec.
694.25 to implement sections 404A(b)(3)(B) and 404B(d)(1)(C) of the
HEA. In doing so we are proposing that the provisions have effect only
where the initial and subsequent grants are both awarded on or after
August 14, 2008, the effective date of the HEOA. Specifically, proposed
Sec. 694.25 would provide that if (1) a Partnership or State is
awarded a GEAR UP grant on or after that date (i.e., initial grant),
(2) the grant ends before all students who received GEAR UP services
under the grant have completed the twelfth grade, and (3) the grantee
receives a new award in a subsequent GEAR UP competition (i.e., new
grant), the grantee must continue to provide services required by Sec.
694.21 and authorized under Sec. Sec. 694.22 and 694.23 to all
students who received GEAR UP services under the initial grant and
remain enrolled in secondary schools until they complete the twelfth
grade. The grantee would be able to provide these services by using
GEAR UP funds awarded for the new grant or funds from the non-Federal
matching contribution required under the new grant.
Reasons: We are proposing to add Sec. 694.25 to implement and
clarify sections 404A(b)(3)(B) and 404B(d)(1)(C) of the HEA, as amended
by sections 404(a)(2) and 404(b) of the HEOA, respectively.
Section 404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA provides that in making awards to
eligible State grantees, the Secretary will ensure that GEAR UP
students served on the day before the date of enactment of the HEOA
continue to receive assistance through the completion of secondary
school. Absent legislative language to the contrary, we interpret the
phrase ``making awards'' in this section as referring to making new
GEAR UP awards. We do so because, without evidence of congressional
intent that the new requirement apply to continuation awards for
grantees that had received initial GEAR UP grants prior to the date of
enactment of the HEOA, we do not believe Congress intended that
grantees should assume the costs and burdens of activities newly
required in the HEOA that they had no legal responsibility to bear when
they applied for their GEAR UP grants before the enactment of the HEOA.
For this reason, with regard to State GEAR UP grants, proposed Sec.
694.25 would apply only to recipients of new grants.
Proposed Sec. 694.25 would contain a similar requirement for
Partnerships that receive new GEAR UP awards. Prior to the changes made
by the HEOA, a Partnership grantee was not required to continue to
assist students who had not completed the 12th grade after the project
period ended. As we stated in the preceding paragraph, in the absence
of clear legislative intent that Congress intended to impose the costs
and burdens of activities newly required in the HEOA on recipients of
GEAR UP continuation grants, we do not believe we can impose such a
requirement. For this reason, with regard to Partnership GEAR UP
grants, proposed Sec. 694.25 similarly would apply only to recipients
of new grants.
With regard to States and Partnerships that receive an initial GEAR
UP grant on or after August 14, 2008, the date of enactment of the
HEOA, we interpret sections 404A(b)(3)(B) and 404B(d)(1)(C) of the HEA
to require those grantees to
[[Page 13859]]
continue to provide services required by Sec. 694.21 and authorized
under Sec. Sec. 694.22 and 694.23 to those students who are enrolled
in secondary schools until they complete the twelfth grade if (1) the
initial grant ends before all students who received GEAR UP services
under the grant have completed the twelfth grade, and (2) the grantee
receives a new award in a subsequent GEAR UP competition.
We do not interpret sections 404A(b)(3)(B) and 404B(d)(1)(C) of the
HEA to require grantees to provide Federal GEAR UP services outside of
the six- or seven-year grant period for the Federal GEAR UP award (see
section 404A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by section 404(a)(2) of the
HEOA) because this would result in an untenable situation. We believe
that this situation would be untenable because, were the Secretary to
interpret the law as applying outside of the six- or seven-year
authorized grant period, the Secretary would be mandating specific
grantee action without the ability to adequately enforce the
requirement. In this regard, the only means the Secretary would have
available to seek enforcement of these provisions, including any needed
grantee reporting and follow-up, would be to use formal administrative
and judicial procedures to seek the return of Federal GEAR UP funds
years after their expenditure. Absent evidence to the contrary, we do
not believe that the Congress intended the statute to have this effect.
Therefore, proposed Sec. 694.25 provides that only a grantee that
receive both an initial and new award on or after August 14, 2008,
must, during the Federal funding period, continue to provide GEAR UP
services to students who received services under the previous GEAR UP
grant award but have not yet completed the twelfth grade.
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 proposed regulatory action
are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits of this proposed
regulatory action, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed
priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria justify
the costs.
We have determined, also, that this proposed regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
HEP and CAMP Programs
The Secretary has concluded that there is no need to discuss the
changes to the regulations for HEP and CAMP in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis because the changes to regulations for these programs were
minor. The most significant changes to these regulations address who
can be considered an immediate family member of a migrant individual in
order to be eligible for program services. The Department determined
that providing clarity to the term ``immediate family member'' would
help ensure there is a uniform standard of eligibility for these
programs.
Federal TRIO Programs
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
These proposed Federal TRIO program regulations are needed to
implement provisions of the HEOA, which changed certain features of the
TRIO program. In proposing these regulations, the Secretary has
endeavored to regulate only where necessary, and in ways that to the
extent possible reflect the recommendations of the non-Federal
negotiators:
Number of Applications: The HEA stipulates that entities
may submit multiple applications for grants under each TRIO program
``if the additional applications describe programs serving different
populations or different campuses.'' The HEA, as amended by the HEOA,
defines ``different populations'' and ``different campuses.''
Section 643.30: Rigorous Secondary School Program of
Study: The HEOA modified the HEA's outcome criteria for Talent Search
by adding the completion of a ``rigorous secondary school program of
study'' as one of the criteria to be considered in calculating prior
experience points.
Section 643.32: Changes to Minimum Number of Participants
Served in Talent Search: In order to provide it with greater
flexibility to establish the minimum number of participants in each TS
grant competition, the Department proposes to eliminate the current
regulatory requirement that TS projects serve a minimum number of
individuals.
Sections 643.30, 644.30, 645.40, 646.30, 647.30: Changes
to Allowable Costs (Computer Hardware and Software)
(TS)(EOC)(UB)(SSS)(McNair): The requirement that grantees must seek
prior approval for purchases of computer equipment was not addressed in
the statute. However, during negotiated rulemaking, negotiators reached
a consensus that computer equipment and software are necessary costs
for grantees to deliver services. Accordingly, the Department proposes
to change its regulations with respect to the purchase of computer
equipment.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
Sections 643.7, 646.7, 643.10, 644.10, 645.20, 646.10, 647.10: Number
of Applications: Branch Campuses and Different Populations
The HEA stipulates that entities may submit multiple applications
``if the additional applications describe programs serving different
populations or different campuses.'' Section 402A(h)(1) and (2) of the
HEA defines ``different campus'' and ``different population.'' A
``different campus'' is defined as a site of an institution of higher
education that: Is geographically apart from the main campus of the
institution; is permanent in nature; and offers courses in educational
programs leading to a degree, certificate, or other recognized
credential. A ``different population'' is defined in section 402A(h)(2)
of the HEA as a group of individuals that an eligible entity
[[Page 13860]]
desires to serve through an application for a TRIO grant that is:
Separate and distinct from any other population that the entity has
applied for a TRIO grant; and while sharing some of the same needs as
another population that the entity has applied to serve, has distinct
needs for specialized services.
The proposed regulations would clarify that, for the purposes of
the TS and UB programs, applicants will be allowed to submit multiple
applications if they plan to serve different target schools. For the
SSS and McNair programs, applicants can submit multiple applications if
they propose to serve different campuses.
The proposed regulations would use a definition of ``different
campus'' that is different from the definition of ``different campus''
currently included in the SSS regulations. Current SSS regulations
require a ``different campus'' to have separate budget and hiring
authority to be an eligible applicant. However, HEA, as amended by
HEOA, defined ``different campus'' as a site of an institution of
higher education that is: ``geographically apart from the main campus
of the institution,'' ``permanent,'' and one that offers courses
leading to an educational credential. The proposed regulations would
implement this definition in accordance with the amended statute. With
respect to the implementation of the HEA's definition of ``different
populations,'' initially, during the negotiated rulemaking sessions,
the Department proposed to implement this change consistent with its
current practice. Currently, all of the TRIO programs except for SSS
prohibit an applicant from submitting an application proposing to serve
a different population within the same target area, school, campus,
etc. The SSS program allows an entity to submit a separate application
to serve individuals with disabilities. However, the non-Federal
negotiators disagreed with this approach and argued that the HEA
permits applicants to submit multiple applications that propose to
serve different populations, even in the same target area, school, or
campus. Ultimately, the Secretary agreed with the non-Federal
negotiators. Under the proposed regulations, therefore, an applicant
planning to serve a separate population would be permitted under
certain circumstances to apply for a separate grant to serve this
population even if it also applies to serve a different population of
students on the same campus.
While grantees must be able to serve more students and to tailor
services to meet the distinct needs of different populations the
Department needs to establish some limitations on the number of
separate applications an eligible entity may submit for each
competition. Without such limitations, adding the definition of the
term different population to the regulations could have the unintended
consequence of disproportionately increasing funding at some
institutions, agencies, and organizations that submit several
applications while limiting the funds available to expand program
services to other areas, schools, and institutions. To mitigate this
risk and to ensure fairness and consistency in the application process,
the Department proposes to amend the regulations for each of the TRIO
programs to provide that the Department will define, for each
competition, the different populations of participants for which an
eligible entity can submit separate applications and publish this
information in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and
other application materials for the competition.
This approach would give the Department the flexibility to
designate the different populations for each competition based on
changing national needs. It also would permit the Department to more
effectively manage the program competitions within the available
resources.
For these reasons, under the proposed regulations, an entity
applying for more than one grant under the TS, EOC, and UB programs
would be able to submit separate applications to serve different target
areas and different target schools, and would also be able to submit
separate applications to serve one or more of the different populations
of participants designated in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications. Entities applying for grants under the SSS and McNair
programs would be able to submit separate applications to serve
different campuses and would also be able to submit separate
applications to serve one or more of the different populations of
participants designated in the Federal Register notice inviting
applications for the competition.
These regulatory changes are expected to increase the number of
grant applications for SSS (and other TRIO) grants. For the SSS
program, the Department estimates an increase of about 450 applicants
(from 1,200 to 1,650) for each competition. With 450 new applicants
devoting approximately 34 hours to the process, the Department expects
that the amount of money spent on applications by applicants would
increase by $742,950. (Note, however, that the cost to individual
applicants is not expected to increase).
Increase in Aggregate Applicant Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
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.''
In addition, the cost of administering SSS grant competition would
likely increase. In particular, the Department estimates that variable
costs of processing and reviewing applications will increase 37.5
percent. The cost of retaining outside reviewers should increase to
$555,000 from $404,000 while application processing costs should
increase from approximately $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
[[Page 13861]]
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 $151,364
in field reviewers as
a result of increase
in applications *
$1,100 ($1,000
honorarium, $100 for
expenses).
Processing applications........ Proportional increase 9,426
in staff or staff
hours as a result of
increase in
applications.
Contractor logistical support Proportional increase 343,807
for workshops, achieving prior in contract costs as a
unfunded applications, result of increase in
application processing, field applications.
reading and slate preparation.
Staff time for conducting Proportional increase 141,382
supervised review. in staff costs 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 would increase the delivery of
the right kinds of services to students. SSS projects geared
specifically towards ESL students, for instance, would be able to
provide highly specialized services to these students in a more
efficient and effective manner than would a general SSS project.
Section 643.30: Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study: Adding
Tuition as an Allowable Cost in the TS Program
The HEOA modified the HEA's outcome criteria for the TS program.
These outcome criteria are used to determine the award of prior
experience points for grantees that choose to apply for future awards.
One of the new outcome criteria added to the statute requires grantees
to report on the number of all TS participants who complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study that will make the students eligible
for Academic Competitiveness Grants (ACG). This new statutory criterion
in and of itself does not require that TS projects provide more
intensive services: It could be interpreted simply as requiring the
Department to track whether TS students, with proper counseling on
course selection and with referrals to tutoring services, enroll in the
coursework that would qualify them for an ACG grant. (In most States,
students can qualify for an ACG grant if they complete four years of
English; three years of mathematics, including algebra I and a higher-
level class such as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and
statistics; three years of science, including at least two of three
specific courses, biology, chemistry, and physics; three years of
social studies; and one year of a language other than English. Under
the ACG program, there are other options for meeting the rigorous
course of study requirement, including taking International
Baccalaureate or Advanced Placement courses.)
Non-Federal negotiators contended that some schools served by TS
grantees do not provide the type of curriculum necessary for students
to meet the requirements of a ``rigorous secondary school program of
study.'' Consequently, they argued, grantees serving students in these
schools are at a disadvantage with respect to meeting this criterion.
They specifically requested that grantees be permitted to use grant
funds to enable participants in the TS program to attend classes at
other schools to help grantees satisfactorily meet this new outcome
criterion. For example, a TS grantee would be permitted to provide
funds to a student whose high school offers only biology and not
chemistry or physics so that the student could attend a local community
college or take an online course to take chemistry or physics.
During the negotiated rulemaking sessions, the negotiators did not
reach agreement on this issue. The Department has decided to propose to
allow TS grantees to use grant funds to pay a participant's tuition for
a course that is part of a rigorous secondary school program of study
if a similar course is not offered at a school within his or her LEA
provided that several conditions are met. The Department has also
decided to propose regulations that would allow TS grantees to pay for
a student's transportation to a school not regularly attended by that
student in order for that student to take a course that is part of a
rigorous program of study.
To determine the impact of these proposed regulations, we need to
estimate the number of TS participants who do not have access to a
rigorous secondary school program of study at their high school and the
cost of providing these participants with the requisite curriculum
(whether through tuition or transportation). We also need to estimate
the extent to which grantees that are serving schools with these
participants would elect to incur these costs because, under the
proposed rules, grantees would not required to provide tuition or
transportation assistance.
According to recent program data from the ACG 2007-2008 End of the
Year Report, 54 percent of ACG recipients qualified under a rigorous
coursework component, 41 percent under a State designated curriculum,
and four percent under the Advanced Placement or International
Baccalaureate Program courses. The Department does not have data on the
availability of curricula that would satisfy the rigorous secondary
school program of study requirement. Therefore, we are asking the
public for data on the extent to which rigorous coursework offerings
that would meet the ACG requirements are not available at the schools
or areas that are targeted under the TS program and the number of
potential TS participants in these schools or areas that would be
unable to meet the requirements because of the unavailability of the
curriculum.
[[Page 13862]]
Although we do not have data on the number of affected students, we
do have some data on the cost of providing tuition assistance. Based on
data collected by the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC)
in 2008, we estimate that the cost of providing a student with one
course per semester, including required textbooks, would be
approximately $560 to $1,280. AACC data indicate that the per credit
costs for public community college ranges from about $20 in California
to $180 in Vermont. This compares to an average grantee cost per TS
participant of approximately $402 in 2008, which means that the
opportunity cost of providing tuition for one TS participant to take
one class at a community college is roughly equal to what it costs on
average to serve 1 to 3 additional participants under the TS program
prior to the enactment of HEOA. Because we do not know the extent to
which grantees would elect to use funds for this purpose or the actual
costs of providing access to this coursework, we are asking current TS
grantees to provide estimates regarding the amount of the project
budget that might be used for tuition and the estimated number of
participants that might benefit each year from this service if the
grantee elected to provide it. These data would enable us to better
estimate the effect of using TS funds for this purpose on program
measures, including the cost per successful outcome.
With respect to the benefits of this proposed regulatory change,
the Secretary believes that students enrolled in schools with curricula
that do not meet the State's definition of a rigorous program of study
will be the primary beneficiaries. TS participants in schools that do
not offer all of coursework needed to satisfy this requirement (e.g., a
physics or chemistry course) may be afforded the opportunity to take
such coursework at a local institution of higher education. Given the
body of research suggesting that students who take rigorous classes in
high school are more likely to enroll in and complete postsecondary
education, providing this benefit to TS participants could improve
their educational outcomes. A 2003 GAO report, for instance, reported
that students taking a highly rigorous secondary school program of
study were 1.7 times more likely to earn a bachelor's degree than
students that took a basic high school curriculum.\1\ However, grantees
will need to balance the opportunity costs of providing these
opportunities to individual students with the expected educational
benefits to avoid an unnecessary increase in the cost of successful
outcomes under this program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, ``Additional Efforts Could Help Education With its
Education Goals,'' May 2003. (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03568.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 643.32: Changes to Minimum Number of Participants Served in
Talent Search
The proposed regulations would remove the regulatory requirement
that TS projects serve a minimum number of individuals. Current
regulations require that any grantee receiving an award of $180,000 or
more must serve a minimum of 600 individuals. The Department proposes
to remove this requirement.
The Department proposes to take this action to provide it
flexibility in each competition to establish the number of
participants, and to adjust these numbers in subsequent competitions
based on experience, cost analyses, and other factors.
The Department is committed to encouraging TS grantees to identify
and adopt the most cost-effective strategies for disadvantaged youth to
complete secondary school programs, enroll in or reenter education
programs at the postsecondary level, and complete postsecondary
education programs. The Department intends to design future TS grant
competitions to achieve this objective. Future grant competition
notices will set parameters that are consistent with the statute to
encourage adoption of cost effective practices using the best available
evidence. This may include setting a minimum number of program
participants for each competition to promote adoption of cost-effective
practices.
The Department intends to address the number of participants a TS
project will be expected to serve each year of the grant cycle through
the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the competition.
The Department also intends to establish a per-participant cost in the
Federal Register notice that would be used to determine the amount of
the grant for an applicant proposing to serve fewer participants than
required for the minimum grant award for the competition.
Sections 643.30, 644.30, 645.40, 646.30, 647.30: Changes to Allowable
Costs (Computer Hardware and Software) (TS)(EOC)(UB)(SSS)(McNair)
Under the proposed regulations, TRIO projects no longer would be
required to obtain the Secretary's approval before purchasing computer
and software equipment. This regulatory change would remove
administrative costs associated with obtaining this approval.
GEAR UP
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
The proposed GEAR UP regulations are needed to implement provisions
of the HEOA, which changed certain features of the GEAR UP program. We
identify those statutory changes that have prompted us to propose
significant changes in regulations. In proposing these regulations, the
Secretary has endeavored to regulate only where necessary, and in ways
that to the extent possible reflect the recommendations of the non-
Federal negotiators:
Section 694.19--Priority: Section 404A(b)(3)(A) of the HEA
now requires that priority be given to those States that have ``carried
out successful [GEAR UP] programs'' prior to enactment of HEOA, and
have a ``prior, demonstrated commitment to early intervention leading
to college access through collaboration and replication of successful
strategies.''
Section 694.8--Waiver of Matching Requirements: Section
404C(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, permits the Secretary to
waive the matching requirement for a Partnership in whole or in part
if, at the time of application, the Partnership (a) demonstrates
significant economic hardship that precludes it from meeting the
matching requirement, or requests that its contributions to the
scholarship fund under section 404E of the HEA be matched on a two-for-
one basis. Section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA also permits the Secretary to
waive the matching requirement for any Partnership grantee that
demonstrates that the matching funds described in its application are
not available, and that it has exhausted all revenues for replacing
these matching funds.
Sections Sec. 694.12 and Sec. 694.13--Scholarship
Component: Section 404E(e)(1) of the HEA, as amended by HEOA, requires
each State grantee to reserve an amount of money that is not less than
the minimum scholarship amount described in section 404E(d) of the HEA,
multiplied by the number of students the grantee estimates will
complete a secondary school diploma or its equivalent as may be
required for the students' admission at an IHE, and enroll in an IHE.
The Department interprets this new statutory provision along with the
new requirement in section 404E(d) of the HEA that all eligible
students (as defined in section 404E(g) of the HEA), whether served by
a State or Partnership grantee, who enroll in an IHE receive at least
the minimum Federal Pell Grant award, to require any GEAR UP grantee
subject to the section 404E requirements to
[[Page 13863]]
provide this minimum award to all GEAR UP students enrolled in an IHE.
This statutory change led the Department to revisit its current
regulations governing the provision of continuation scholarships.
Section Sec. 694.16--Return of Unused Scholarship Funds:
Section 404(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the HEA, as amended by HEOA, now requires
State grantees either to redistribute to other eligible students
scholarship funds that are not used by eligible students within six
years of the student's completion of secondary school or return those
funds to the Secretary for distribution to other grantees in accordance
with the funding rules described in section 404B(a) of the HEA.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
Section 694.17: Priority
Proposed Sec. 694.17 clarifies how the Department would implement
the statute's requirement that priority in making awards be given to
those States that (1) prior to enactment of HEOA have ``carried out
successful GEAR UP programs'' and (2) have a ``prior, demonstrated
commitment to early intervention leading to college access through
collaboration and replication of successful strategies.'' While the
Department could seek to implement this priority by having applicants
address in their applications how they met both aspects, we believe
that imposing this kind of data burden is unnecessary.
We are proposing instead to rely, where possible, on reports that
applicants previously submitted in implementing their prior GEAR UP
projects. Thus, to implement this statutory requirement, the Department
would grant ``priority preference points'' to State applicants, based,
in part, on their prior submission of data, including outcome data,
about their projects and other information available to the Department.
At present, the Department is considering implementing the second
element of the priority, which concerns a prior, demonstrated
commitment to early intervention leading to college access, through
review of the new GEAR UP application itself given that we do not know
how else the Department would obtain the information it needs to
determine the extent to which applicants would meet the second element
of the priority. Moreover, should the Department determine that it
needs applicants to provide more information in their applications that
reflect this second element, the Department believes that the
additional burden would be very small, and that the costs of this
additional administrative burden would be far outweighed by the
benefits from ensuring that the Department is able to give priority to
the most deserving State applicants.
Sections 694.8 and 694.9: Waiver of Matching Requirements
Consistent with section 404C(b) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA,
these proposed sections would specify the circumstances in which the
Secretary would consider requests from applicants for a waiver of the
GEAR UP's matching requirement based on significant economic hardship,
and from grantees based on the unavailability of matching funds as
described in section 404C(b)(2)(A) and (B) of the HEA. (Section
404C(b)(2)(A)(i) of the HEA also authorizes a Partnership applicant to
request that contributions to scholarship funds established under
section 404E of the HEA be matched on a two-to-one basis, but our
proposed Sec. 694.8(c) simply repeats this statutory provision.)
The proposed regulations that would govern waiver requests by
applicants (proposed Sec. 694.8) and by grantees (proposed Sec.
694.9) would provide significant benefit to the public, and do so in
numerous ways. First, they provide that the Secretary would entertain
waiver requests of significant amounts from applicants and grantees--up
to 75 percent for up to two years in the case of an applicant that
demonstrates a significant economic hardship stemming from a specific,
exceptional, or uncontrollable event, and up to 50 percent for up to
two years in the case of an applicant with a pre-existing and on-going
significant economic hardship that precludes them from meeting the
matching requirement. Second, by providing clarifying examples of the
kinds of economic situations and events that would give rise to
approval of an applicant's or grantee's waiver requests, the proposed
regulations would advise the public of the considerations the Secretary
will examine upon receipt of a waiver request.
Finally, for an applicant in an area that faces chronic economic
challenges expected to affect the life of the GEAR UP project, proposed
Sec. 694.8(b)(3) would permit the Secretary to grant tentative
approval of the waiver for the entire project period, subject to the
Partnership's submission of documentation every two years that confirms
(1) the continued economic hardship, and (2) the Partnership's
continuing and unsuccessful attempts to secure matching contributions.
This latter proposal would both eliminate this applicant's need to
prepare a non-Federal budget as part of its application, and upon
initial approval of the waiver request, would provide a basis for
predicting whether or not the Secretary would be expected to extend the
waiver in future years.
Thus, these regulatory provisions would provide a substantial
benefit to grantees meeting the proposed criteria. For example, in
2009, the average GEAR UP grant award made to a Partnership was
approximately $1.1 million. Because, absent a waiver, GEAR UP grantees
must match the amount of Federal expenditures, the average annual
matching requirement for a Partnership was also $1.1 million in 2009.
However, under proposed 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 fund and sources of potential replacement contributions,
could receive a waiver up to 50 percent, or on average up to $600,000
per year. And, under proposed 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 would not
be able to continue operating their GEAR UP projects without these
waivers, these proposed regulations would enable the participating
students to continue to receive GEAR UP services, albeit at a reduced
level given the smaller matching contributions.
In considering the amount of match subject to possible waiver, the
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.
[[Page 13864]]
Accordingly, they rejected options under which the Secretary might
provide a waiver of the matching contributions for one or more years of
the project because of economic conditions or a one-time exceptional or
uncontrollable event waiver of up to 100 percent.
We agree with the non-Federal negotiators on this issue. We believe
that our proposal to allow the Secretary to grant waivers of the
program's matching requirement of up to 50 and 75 percent strikes the
right balance between (a) providing relief where circumstances beyond
the control of a Partnership affect its ability to maintain its
required match, and (b) the need for members of the Partnership to be
truly committed to helping to provide the services that participating
GEAR UP students need.
Sections 694.12 and 694.13: Scholarship Component
Proposed Sec. 694.14(g) would make the current regulatory
requirement that grantees participating in the scholarship component
must grant continuation scholarships to each student who was granted an
initial scholarship (and who remains eligible) inapplicable to grantees
that receive their initial GEAR UP awards on or after August 14, 2008.
Our proposal to remove this financial burden from these grantees
recognizes that by requiring each eligible student to receive at least
the Federal Pell Grant minimum award, section 404E of the HEA, as
amended by the HEOA, will leave grantees with insufficient scholarship
funds to meet the current regulatory requirement. While GEAR UP
students may bear a corresponding cost by not having these continuation
awards available to them, these costs--like our proposal to omit the
requirement in current Sec. 694.10(d) from proposed Sec. 694.14--
results from the new statutory requirement that all eligible students
receive at least the Pell Grant minimum award. Because the minimum
scholarship amount is equal to the minimum Federal Pell Grant award,
(which is defined in section 401(a)(1)(C) of the HEA as 10 percent of
the maximum Pell Grant award), the benefit to grantees as a result of
this proposed regulation would be equal to at least 10 percent of the
appropriated maximum Pell grant award in a given year, multiplied by
the number of individuals the grantee rejects for continuation awards.
Importantly, because removing the continuation award requirement from
these regulations would only apply to new awards, no GEAR UP students
in newly funded projects would have the expectation of receiving a GEAR
UP continuation scholarship.
Section 694.16: Return of Unused Scholarship Funds
Section 404(e)(4)(A)(ii) of HEA, as amended by HEOA, requires
grantees to return to the Secretary any scholarship funds that remain
after they have first redistributed unused funds to eligible students.
To enable the Department to monitor these scholarship accounts and
ensure that Federal funds reserved for scholarships are expended as
intended, the Department proposes to add Sec. 694.16(c), which would
require grantees participating in the scholarship component of the
program to provide annual information, as the Secretary may require, on
the amount of Federal and non-Federal funds reserved for GEAR UP
scholarships, and the disbursement of those scholarship funds to
eligible GEAR UP students. These annual reports would need to be
submitted until all of the funds are either disbursed or returned to
the Secretary.
This requirement imposes an administrative burden on the grantees.
Grantees would be able to charge some of these administrative costs to
their award of Federal GEAR UP grant funds because some of these annual
reports would be prepared and submitted during the project period.
Other annual reports would need to be prepared and submitted after the
six- or seven-year GEAR UP project period has ended (by which time it
is possible that the Partnerships have dissolved). In order to pay the
costs of post-project reports, grantees would be able to (1) reserve
additional amounts during each project period for the future costs of
preparing and submitting post-project reports, or (2) authorize those
administering the GEAR UP scholarship accounts to deduct such amount
from the amount held in reserve for GEAR UP scholarships (assuming that
all eligible students will still be able to receive a minimum Federal
Pell Grant award).
Because the Department has not yet established detailed reporting
requirements for this regulatory provision, it is difficult to estimate
the costs that grantees could charge to GEAR UP funds. The Department
solicits information from the public regarding the potential costs
associated with this provision and the content and format of the future
collection of information. The Secretary believes that the costs
introduced by this proposed regulatory provision are justified by the
Department's need to have the necessary information to monitor the
millions of dollars of Federal funds obligated to GEAR UP scholarship
accounts.
Accounting Statement: As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at
http://www.Whithouse.gov/omb/Circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the following
table, we have prepared an accounting statement showing the
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of
this proposed regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate
of the Federal payments to be made to Institutions of Higher Education,
public and private agencies and organizations, and secondary schools
under these programs as a result of this proposed regulatory action.
Expenditures are classified as transfers to those entities.
Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers (in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Monetized Transfers............ $1,218.
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 proposed regulations would not
adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. The proposed
regulations would affect institutions of higher education, States, LEAs
and nonprofit organizations. The U.S. Small Business Administration
Size Standards define entities as ``small'' if they are for-profit or
nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below $5,000,000 or if
they are institutions controlled by small governmental jurisdictions,
which are comprised of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than
50,000.
HEP and CAMP
The Secretary believes that the minor changes proposed to the HEP
and CAMP regulations will not affect small entities.
Federal TRIO Programs
The Secretary believes that the proposed regulations will not
adversely impact any small entities receiving TRIO grants. The
Department has determined that approximately 141 of the 2,887 TRIO
grantees are defined as ``small entities'' under the U.S. Small
Business Administration's size standards. Of these 141 entities, 133
are
[[Page 13865]]
nonprofit organizations that receive less than $5,000,000 in total
annual revenue, 7 are LEAs or Tribes with jurisdictions containing
fewer than 50,000 people, and one is a secondary school. The Secretary
believes that the proposed regulations will not negatively impact these
small entities and, in fact, believes that small grantees will benefit
from these regulations. The removal of the minimum students served
requirement under the Talent Search program will benefit small
entities, whose typically smaller budgets make it difficult to serve
large numbers of students. In addition, the elimination of the
requirement for grantees to obtain the Secretary's approval before
purchasing computer equipment would particularly benefit small
grantees, for which administrative costs are most burdensome. Most
importantly, given that TRIO programs are competitive grant programs,
all costs of participating are reimbursed by the grant.
GEAR UP
The Secretary believes that the proposed regulations will not
adversely impact any small entities receiving GEAR UP grants. The 42
States receiving grants are not small entities because each State has a
population exceeding 50,000. Thirty of the fiscal agents for the 154
Partnership grants are local educational agencies; according to the
U.S. Census Bureau, 6 of these LEAs have jurisdiction over an area with
fewer than 50,000 residents, and as such, are defined as ``small
entities'' under the U.S. Small Business Administration size standards.
However, the Secretary believes that these small entities will not be
adversely impacted by the proposed regulations. In accordance with
statutory changes, the Secretary's proposed regulations regarding
matching requirement waivers should particularly benefit small fiscal
agents, which are more vulnerable to economic hardship than large
fiscal agents, and, therefore, more likely to qualify for waivers. Most
importantly, given that GEAR UP is a competitive grant program, all
costs of participating are reimbursed by the grant.
The Secretary invites comments from small institutions as to
whether they believe the proposed regulations would have a significant
impact on them and, if so, requests evidence to support that belief.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Proposed Sec. Sec. 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, and 644.24 of the Educational
Opportunity Centers (EOC) regulations; Sec. Sec. 645.31; 645.32, and
645.35 of the Upward Bound (UB) regulations; Sec. Sec. 646.21, 646.22,
646.24, 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 of Education
will submit a copy of these sections to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for its review.
Parts 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647--Federal TRIO Programs
Recent grant application packages for the Training, SSS, TS, EOC,
UB, and McNair programs have been or will be discontinued; new
application packages for these programs will be developed prior to
their next competitions, and will reflect any regulatory changes
included in the final regulations that will be published in 2010. For
each new application, a separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be
published to solicit comment on the new application several months
prior to the next scheduled competition for the program.
Likewise, any regulatory changes applicable to the annual
performance reports (APRs) will affect grants awarded under
competitions conducted after the enactment of the HEOA. The APRs for
the first year of a new grant will be due approximately 15 months after
the beginning of the new grant period. Until new grants are awarded,
the Department will continue to use the existing APR for the program. A
new APR for each program that addresses the new HEOA requirements will
be developed for the new grant period. A separate 60-day Federal
Register notice followed by a 30-day Federal Register notice will be
published to solicit public comment on the new APR form for each
program prior to its usage.
Sections 642.21 and 642.25 (Training)--Selection Criteria the Secretary
Uses To Evaluate an Application for a New Grant and the Second Review
Process for Unsuccessful Applicants
The proposed regulations for the Training Program would amend the
selection criteria the Secretary would use to evaluate an application
for a new grant to conform to current practice. Further, section
402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, has added
requirements for a formal second review process for unsuccessful
applicants. Therefore, the proposed regulations would add a new section
that establishes processes and procedures for a second review of
unsuccessful applications. The new application would include the
changes to the selection criteria and describe the processes and
procedures for the second review of unsuccessful applications.
Specifically, we propose to drop the Need criterion from the
selection criteria for the Training Program (current Sec. 642.31(f))
to conform to current practice. An applicant for a Training grant would
need to address one of the absolute priorities established in the
Federal Register notice inviting applications for the competition. With
the absolute priorities, the Department would establish the ``need''
for the proposed training; thus, it would be redundant to require an
applicant to provide data in the application to support the need for
the training project. Therefore, the Need selection criterion is no
longer necessary. The proposed change would reduce the amount of
information an applicant must include in its application.
In addition, the application will describe the procedures an
unsuccessful applicant must follow to request a second review of its
application. Under the proposed regulations, only those applicants in
the proposed ``funding band'' would be eligible to request a second
review. As described in the proposed regulations, the Department would
notify an unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its
application and the ``funding band'' for the second review and provide
copies of the peer reviewers' evaluations of the application and the
applicant's prior experience (PE) scores, if applicable. The applicant
would be given 15 calendar days after receiving notification that its
application was not funded in which to submit a written request for a
second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided
in the Secretary's written notification. To be considered for a second
review, an applicant would need to provide evidence demonstrating that
the Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made a
technical, administrative or scoring error in the processing or review
of the application. The applicant, however, would not be able to submit
any additional data or information that was not included in its
original application.
The proposed regulatory change to the selection criteria would
reduce the amount of information an applicant must include in its
application,
[[Page 13866]]
resulting in an estimated burden reduction of 240 hours. In addition,
we estimate that approximately ten percent of the applications received
under each competition for Training grants will score within the
``funding band.'' For each applicant in the ``funding band'' that
requests a second review, we estimate an additional burden of two hours
for a burden increase of 12 hours, which includes the time an applicant
would need to review the peer reviewers' evaluations and, if
applicable, the PE assessment and submit a written request for a second
review.
Taken together, the proposed increase and decrease in burden would
result in a net total burden reduction of 228 hours, reflected in OMB
Control Number 1840-NEW1.
Sections 643.21 and 643.25 (TS)--Selection Criteria the Secretary Uses
To Evaluate an Application for a New Grant and the Second Review
Process for Unsuccessful Applicants
The proposed regulations would amend the selection criteria the
Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a new TS grant to address
statutory changes resulting from the HEOA. Further, section
402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, has added
requirements for a formal second review process for unsuccessful
applicants. Therefore, the proposed regulations would add a new section
that establishes processes and procedures for a second review of
unsuccessful applications. The new application would include the
changes to the selection criteria and the processes and procedures for
the second review of unsuccessful applications.
The HEOA has made significant changes to the purpose and goals of
the TS program as reflected in changes to applicant eligibility, the
list of required and permissible services, and the outcome criteria. To
better align the selection criteria with these statutory changes, we
propose to revise the following selection criteria: Sec. 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).
The revised selection criteria would replace the existing criteria in
Sec. Sec. 643.21(a) 643.21(b), 643.21(c), and 643.21(d).
In addition, the application would describe the procedures an
unsuccessful applicant must follow to request a second review of its
application. Under the proposed regulations, only those applicants in
the proposed ``funding band'' would be eligible to request a second
review. As described in the proposed regulations, the Department would
notify an unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its
application and the ``funding band'' for the second review and provide
copies of the peer reviewers' evaluations of the application and the
applicant's prior experience (PE) scores, if applicable. The applicant
would be given 15 calendar days after receiving notification that its
application was not funded in which to submit a written request for a
second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided
in the Secretary's written notification. To be considered for a second
review, an applicant would need to provide evidence demonstrating that
the Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made a
technical, administrative or scoring error in the processing or review
of the application. The applicant, however, would not be able to submit
any additional data or information that was not included in its
original application.
The Department does not expect that proposed changes to the
selection criteria to increase an applicant's paperwork burden.
However, we estimate that approximately two percent of the applications
received under each competition for TS grants will score within the
``funding band''. For each applicant in the ``funding band'' that
requests a second review, we estimate an additional burden of two
hours, which includes the time an applicant would need to review the
peer reviewers' evaluations and, if applicable, the PE assessment and
submit a written request for a second review. This would result in a
total burden increase of 60 hours for the revised application, which
would be reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW2. A separate
30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public
comment on the new application form to be used for the next competition
for new TS grants currently scheduled for fall 2010.
Sections 644.21 and 644.24 (EOC)--Selection Criteria the Secretary Uses
To Evaluate an Application for a New Grant and the Second Review
Process for Unsuccessful Applicants
The proposed regulations for the EOC Program amend the selection
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a new grant
to address statutory changes resulting from the HEOA. Further, section
402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, has added
requirements for a formal second review process for unsuccessful
applicants. Therefore, the proposed regulations would establish
processes and procedures for a second review of unsuccessful
applications. The new application would include the changes to the
selection criteria and describe the processes and procedures for the
second review of unsuccessful applications.
Revisions in the selection criteria are needed to address the
statutory changes resulting from the HEOA. The HEOA has made changes to
applicant eligibility and the outcome criteria. To better align the
selection criteria with these statutory changes, we propose to revise
the following selection criteria: Sec. Sec. 644.21(b) (Objectives) and
644.21(d)(2) (Applicant and community support). The revised selection
criteria would replace existing criteria.
In addition, the application would describe the procedures an
unsuccessful applicant would need to follow to request a second review
of its application. Under the proposed regulations, only those
applicants in the proposed ``funding band'' would be eligible to
request a second review. As described in the proposed regulations, the
Department would notify an unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the
status of its application and the ``funding band'' for the second
review and provide copies of the peer reviewers' evaluations of the
application and the applicant's prior experience (PE) scores, if
applicable. The applicant would be given 15 calendar days after
receiving notification that its application was not funded in which to
submit a written request for a second review in accordance with the
instructions and due date provided in the Secretary's written
notification. To be considered for a second review, an applicant would
need to provide evidence demonstrating that the Department, an agent of
the Department, or a peer reviewer made a technical, administrative or
scoring error in the processing or review of the application. The
applicant, however, would not be able to submit any additional data or
information that was not included in its original application.
The Department does not expect that these proposed changes to the
selection criteria would increase an applicant's paperwork burden.
However, we estimate that approximately two percent of the applications
received under each competition for EOC grants will score within the
``funding band.'' For each applicant in the ``funding band'' that
requests a second review, we estimate an additional burden of two
hours, which includes the time an applicant would need to review the
peer reviewers' evaluations and, if applicable, the PE assessment and
submit a written request for a second
[[Page 13867]]
review. This will result in a total burden increase of 20 hours for the
revised application, which will be reflected in a new OMB Control
Number 1840-NEW3. A separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be
published to solicit public comment on the new application form to be
used for the next competition for new EOC grants currently scheduled
for fall 2010.
Sections 645.31 and 642.35 (UB)--Selection Criteria the Secretary Uses
To Evaluate an Application for a New Grant and the Second Review
Process for Unsuccessful Applicants
The proposed UB regulations would amend the selection criteria the
Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a new grant to address
statutory changes resulting from the HEOA. Further, section
402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, has added
requirements for a formal second review process for unsuccessful
applicants. Therefore, the proposed regulations would establish
processes and procedures for a second review of unsuccessful
applications. The new application would include the changes to the
selection criteria and describe the processes and procedures for the
second review of unsuccessful applications.
The HEOA has made changes to applicant eligibility and the outcome
criteria. To better align the selection criteria with these statutory
changes, we propose to revise the following selection criteria:
Sec. Sec. 645.31(b) (Objectives) and 645.31(d)(2) (Applicant and
community support). The revised selection criteria would replace
existing criteria in Sec. Sec. 645.31(b) and 645.31(d)(2).
In addition, the application would describe the procedures an
unsuccessful applicant must follow to request a second review of its
application. Under the proposed regulations, only those applicants in
the proposed ``funding band'' would be eligible to request a second
review. As described in the proposed regulations, the Department would
notify an unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its
application and the ``funding band'' for the second review and provide
copies of the peer reviewers' evaluations of the application and the
applicant's prior experience (PE) scores, if applicable. The applicant
would be given 15 calendar days after receiving notification that its
application was not funded in which to submit a written request for a
second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided
in the Secretary's written notification. To be considered for a second
review, an applicant would need to provide evidence demonstrating that
the Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made a
technical, administrative or scoring error in the processing or review
of the application. The applicant, however, would not be permitted to
submit any additional data or information that was not included in its
original application.
The Department does not expect these proposed changes to the
selection criteria will increase an applicant's paperwork burden.
However, we estimate that approximately two percent of the applications
received under each competition for UB grants will score within the
``funding band.'' For each applicant in the ``funding band'' that
requests a second review, we estimate an additional burden of two
hours, which includes the time an applicant would need to review the
peer reviewers' evaluations and, if applicable, the PE assessment and
submit a written request for a second review. This would result in a
total burden increase of 80 hours for the revised application, which
would be reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW4. A separate
30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public
comment on the new application form to be used for the next competition
for new UB grants currently scheduled for either fall 2010 or fall
2011.
Sections 646.11; 646.21 and 646.25 (SSS)--The Assurances and Other
Information an Applicant Must Include in an Application, the Selection
Criteria the Secretary Uses To Evaluate an Application for a New Grant
and the Second Review Process for Unsuccessful Applicants
The proposed SSS regulations amend the selection criteria the
Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a new grant to address
statutory changes resulting from the HEOA and add the statutory
requirement that an applicant include in its application a description
of its efforts in providing participants with sufficient financial
assistance. Further, section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by
the HEOA, has added requirements for a formal second review process for
unsuccessful applicants. Therefore, the proposed regulations add a new
section that establishes processes and procedures for a second review
of unsuccessful applications. The new application will include the
changes to the selection criteria and describe the processes and
procedures for the second review of unsuccessful applications.
The HEOA made changes to the outcome criteria. To better align the
selection criteria with these statutory changes and current practice,
we propose to revise Sec. 646.21(b) (Objectives). The revised
selection criteria will replace existing criteria. Further, the revised
Sec. 646.11 will include the requirement that the applicant discuss in
its application its efforts to provide participants sufficient
financial assistance.
In addition, the application will describe the procedures an
unsuccessful applicant must follow to request a second review of its
application. Under the proposed regulations, only those applicants in
the proposed ``funding band'' are eligible to request a second review.
As described in the proposed regulations, the Department will notify an
unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its application
and the ``funding band'' for the second review and provide copies of
the peer reviewers' evaluations of the application and the applicant's
prior experience (PE) scores, if applicable. The applicant will be
given 15 calendar days after receiving notification that its
application was not funded in which to submit a written request for a
second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided
in the Secretary's written notification. To be considered for a second
review, an applicant must provide evidence demonstrating that the
Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made a
technical, administrative, or scoring error in the processing or review
of the application. The applicant, however, cannot submit any
additional data or information that was not included in its original
application.
The Department does not expect the proposed changes to the
selection criteria to increase an applicant's paperwork burden.
However, we estimate that approximately two percent of the applications
received under each competition for SSS grants will score within the
``funding band'' and be eligible for a second review. For each
applicant in the ``funding band'' that requests a second review, we
estimate an additional burden of two hours, which includes the time an
applicant would need to review the peer reviewers' evaluations and, if
applicable, the PE assessment and submit a written request for a second
review. This would result in a total burden increase of 66 hours for
the revised application, which would be reflected in a new OMB Control
Number 1840-NEW5. A separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be
published to solicit public comment on the new application form to be
used for the next
[[Page 13868]]
competition for new SSS grants currently scheduled for fall 2013.
Sections 647.21 and 647.25 (McNair)--Selection Criteria the Secretary
Uses To Evaluate an Application for a New Grant and the Second Review
Process for Unsuccessful Applicants
The proposed McNair regulations would amend the selection criteria
the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a new grant to
address statutory changes resulting from the HEOA. Further, section
402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, has added
requirements for a formal second review process for unsuccessful
applicants. Therefore, the proposed regulations would establish
processes and procedures for a second review of unsuccessful
applications. The new application would describe the changes to the
selection criteria and the processes and procedures for the second
review of unsuccessful applications.
The HEOA has made changes to the outcome criteria. To better align
the selection criteria with these statutory changes and current
practice, we propose to revise Sec. 647.21(b) (Objectives). The
revised selection criteria would replace the current criteria in Sec.
647.21(b).
In addition, the application will describe the procedures an
unsuccessful applicant must follow to request a second review of its
application. Under the proposed regulations, only those applicants in
the proposed ``funding band'' would be eligible to request a second
review. As described in the proposed regulations, the Department would
notify an unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its
application and the ``funding band'' for the second review and provide
copies of the peer reviewers' evaluations of the application and the
applicant's prior experience (PE) scores, if applicable. The applicant
would be given 15 calendar days after receiving notification that its
application was not funded in which to submit a written request for a
second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided
in the Secretary's written notification. To be considered for a second
review, an applicant would need to provide evidence demonstrating that
the Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made a
technical, administrative or scoring error in the processing or review
of the application. The applicant, however, would not be permitted to
submit any additional data or information that was not included in its
original application.
The Department does not expect proposed changes to the selection
criteria to increase an applicant's paperwork burden. However, we
estimate that approximately two percent of the applications received
under each competition for McNair grants will score within the
``funding band.'' For each applicant in the ``funding band'' that
requests a second review, we estimate an additional burden of two
hours, which includes the time an applicant would need to review the
peer reviewers' evaluations and, if applicable, the PE assessment and
submit a written request for a second review. This would result in a
total burden increase of 16 hours for the revised application, which
would be reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW6. A separate
30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public
comment on the new application form for the next competition for new
McNair grants currently scheduled for either fall 2010 or fall 2011.
Section 642.22 (Training)--How Does the Secretary Evaluate Prior
Experience?
The HEA, as amended, does not establish specific outcome criteria
for the Training program; the program outcome criteria for evaluating a
grantee's prior experience (PE) are established in current regulations.
Under the proposed regulations, we would award PE points for each
criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination would be based on the
information the grantee submits in its APR. The proposed regulations
amend the prior experience criteria the Secretary uses to award PE
points as follows.
For Training (Newly redesignated Sec. 642.20 and 642.22), we
propose to clarify the PE criteria and to update the regulations to
reflect the maximum number of PE points a Training program grantee may
earn. The maximum number of points would change from 8 points to 15
points.
The burden hour estimate associated with this APR is reported under
OMB Control Number 1894-0003, the Department's generic performance
report Standard 524B form. The Department does not expect these
proposed editorial changes to increase burden.
Section 643.22 (TS)--How Does the Secretary Evaluate Prior Experience?
and Section 643.32 Includes a New Recordkeeping Requirement
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA, provides specific outcome criteria to be used to determine an
entity's prior experience (PE) of high quality service delivery and for
the purpose of reporting annually to the Congress on the performance of
the TS program. Prior to the enactment of the HEOA, the PE criteria
were established in regulations.
Under the proposed regulations, we would award PE points for each
criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination would be based on the
information the grantee submits in its APR. The proposed regulations
would amend the criteria the Secretary uses to award PE points.
The proposed regulations would amend the PE criteria to address
statutory changes resulting from the HEOA. The new statutory outcome
and PE criteria for TS require grantees to report on: (1) Secondary
school persistence of participants; (2) secondary school graduation of
participants with regular secondary school diploma; (3) secondary
school graduation of participants in a rigorous secondary school
program of study; (4) the postsecondary enrollment of participants; and
(5) the postsecondary completion of participants.
We also propose to amend the recordkeeping requirements in Sec.
643.32 to require grantees to maintain a list of courses taken by
participants receiving support to complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study.
Currently one APR form is used for both the TS and EOC programs.
Because of the proposed changes to TS, the Department plans to develop
a new APR for TS. The Department expects the proposed reporting and
recordkeeping requirements to increase the reporting burden for this
new data collection to 15 hours for each grantee. This would result in
a total burden increase of 7,050 hours for the new APR, which would be
reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW7. A separate 60-day
Federal Register notice followed by a 30-day Federal Register notice
will be published to solicit public comment on the new APR form several
months prior to its first use in fall 2012.
Section 644.22 (EOC)--How Does the Secretary Evaluate Prior Experience?
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA, provides specific outcome criteria to be used to determine an
entity's prior experience (PE) of high quality service delivery and for
the purpose of reporting annually to the Congress on the performance of
the EOC
[[Page 13869]]
program. Prior to the HEOA, the PE criteria were established in
regulations.
Under the proposed regulations, we would award PE points for each
criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination would be based on the
information the grantee submits in its APR. The proposed regulations
would amend the criteria the Secretary uses to award PE points.
The new statutory PE criteria are similar to the current regulatory
PE criteria (see current Sec. 644.22); therefore, the Department does
not expect the proposed changes to increase burden on a EOC grantee.
However, when a new TS APR is developed, the current TS/EOC form would
not be used by TS grantees; therefore, we expect a total burden
decrease for this data collection of 2,820 hours, which would be
reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW8.
A separate 60-day Federal Register notice followed by a 30-day
Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public comment on
the new APR form several months prior to its first use in fall 2012.
Section 645.32 (UB)--How Does the Secretary Evaluate Prior Experience?
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA, provides specific outcome criteria to be used to determine an
entity's prior experience (PE) of high quality service delivery and for
the purpose of reporting annually to the Congress on the performance of
the UB program. Prior to the enactment of the HEOA, the PE criteria
were established in regulations.
Under the proposed regulations, we would award PE points for each
criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination would be based on the
information the grantee submits in its APR. The proposed regulations
would amend the criteria the Secretary uses to award PE points.
Revisions in the PE criteria are needed to address statutory
changes resulting from the HEOA. The new statutory outcome PE criteria
for UB requires grantees to report on: (1) The academic performance of
participants; (2) secondary school retention and graduation of
participants; (3) completion by participants of a rigorous secondary
school program of study; (4) the postsecondary enrollment of
participants; and (5) the postsecondary completion of participants.
The Department expects the new requirements that a grantee report
on the completion of a rigorous secondary school program of study and
postsecondary completion of participants would increase the reporting
burden for this data collection by six hours for each grantee. This
would result in a total burden increase of 6,858 hours for the revised
APR, which would be reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW9.
A separate 60-day Federal Register notice followed by a 30-day
Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public comment on
the new APR form several months prior to its first use in either fall
2012 or fall 2013.
Section 646.22 (SSS)--How Does the Secretary Evaluate Prior Experience?
and New Section 646.33 Adds the Statutory Matching Requirements for
Grantees That Use Federal SSS Funds for Grant Aid
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA, provides specific outcome criteria to be used to determine an
entity's prior experience of high quality service delivery and for the
purpose of reporting annually to Congress on the performance of the SSS
program. Prior to the HEOA, the PE criteria were established in
regulations.
Under the proposed regulations, we would award PE points for each
criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination would be based on the
information the grantee submits in its APR. The proposed regulations
would amend the criteria the Secretary uses to award PE points.
Revisions in the PE criteria are needed to address statutory
changes resulting from the HEOA. The statutory outcome PE criteria for
the SSS program requires grantees to report on baccalaureate degree
competition for participants at four-year institutions and certificate
and associate degree completion and transfers to four-year institutions
for participants at two-year institutions. The Department expects that
these requirements for tracking the academic progress of SSS
participants through degree completion to increase the reporting burden
by six hours for each grantee.
We also propose to add new 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, as
amended, is not required to match the Federal funds used for grant aid.
For those grantees that are required to provide matching funds for
grant aid (estimated at 50 percent of SSS grantees), we estimate that
the proposed regulations will increase the burden by two hours per
grantee. The combined increase would result in a total burden increase
of 6,720 hours for the revised APR, which would be reflected in a new
OMB Control Number 1840-NEW10. A separate 60-day Federal Register
notice followed by a 30-day Federal Register notice will be published
to solicit public comment on the new APR form several months prior to
its first use in fall 2011.
Section 647.22 (McNair)--How Does the Secretary Evaluate Prior
Experience?
Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the
HEOA, provides specific outcome criteria for the McNair Program to be
used to determine an entity's prior experience of high quality service
delivery and for the purpose of reporting annually to Congress on the
performance of the McNair program. Prior to the HEOA, the PE criteria
were established in regulations.
Under the proposed regulations, we would award PE points for each
criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable
project objectives. This determination would be based on the
information the grantee submits in its APR. The proposed regulations
would amend the criteria the Secretary uses to award PE points.
The Department expects the new statutory requirements that include
long-term tracking of the academic progress of McNair participants
through completion of the doctoral degree will increase the reporting
burden for this data collection by 4 hours per grantee. This will
result in a total burden increase of 760 hours for the revised APR,
which will be reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW11. A
separate 60-day Federal Register notice followed by a 30-day Federal
Register notice will be published to solicit public comment on the new
APR form several months prior to its first use in either fall 2012 or
2013.
[[Page 13870]]
Part 694--GEAR UP
Sections 694.7, 694.8 and 694.9--Matching Requirements for GEAR UP
Grants
The proposed regulations provide that an applicant for GEAR UP
funding must state in its application the percentage of the cost of the
GEAR UP project that the applicant will provide from non-Federal funds.
The proposed regulations also provide that the Secretary may waive a
portion of the matching requirement in response to a grantee's written
request for a waiver of the match. The proposed regulations further
provide the conditions that must be met for the Secretary to approve a
request to waive a portion of the matching requirement and that if the
Secretary grants a tentative waiver to a new grantee for the full
project period because of a pre-existing or ongoing economic hardship,
the recipient will need to submit documentation every two years to
demonstrate that conditions have not changed.
We estimate that the proposed changes would increase burden by 12.5
hours for each GEAR UP applicant in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW12, for
a total burden increase of 6,250 hours, based on 500 applicants. A
separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit
public comment on the revised application form prior to its usage,
currently estimated to be fall 2010.
We estimate that the proposed changes would decrease burden by 500
hours for each GEAR UP grantee in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW13,
resulting in a total burden decrease of 7,860 hours, and likewise in
OMB Control Number 1840-NEW14, resulting in a total burden decrease of
5,625. A separate 60-day Federal Register notice followed by a 30-day
Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public comment on
the revised APR and FPR forms prior to their usage, currently estimated
to be spring 2011 or spring 2012. If granted a waiver of the matching
requirement, GEAR UP grantees will spend significantly less time
collecting and documenting matching funds.
Section 694.16(c)--Scholarship Reporting Requirements
The proposed regulations require grantees whose initial GEAR UP
grant awards were made on or after August 14, 2008 and grantees whose
initial GEAR UP grant awards were made prior to August 14, 2008, but
who, pursuant to 694.12(b)(2), elect make scholarships pursuant to the
HEOA requirements in to furnish information as the Secretary may
require on the amount of any Federal and non-Federal funds reserved and
held for GEAR UP scholarships and the disbursement of these scholarship
funds. Reporting would be required until these funds are fully expended
or, if Federal funds, returned to the Secretary.
We estimate that these proposed changes would increase burden by
400 hours for each GEAR UP grantee in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW13,
resulting in a total burden increase of 8,760, and by 800 hours for
each grantee in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW14, resulting in a total
burden increase of 6,925. A separate 60-day Federal Register notice
followed by a 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to
solicit public comment on the revised APR and FPR forms prior to their
usage, currently estimated to be spring 2011 or spring 2012.
Section 694.19--Priorities for GEAR UP Grants
The proposed regulations would provide that the Secretary awards
competitive preference priority points to an eligible applicant for a
State grant that has carried out a successful State GEAR UP grant prior
to August 14, 2008 and has a prior, demonstrated commitment to early
intervention leading to college access through collaboration and
replication of successful strategies.
Applicants would respond to these priorities as part of their
applications in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW12, which would increase
total burden by 6,250 hours. A separate 30-day Federal Register notice
will be published to solicit public comment on the revised application
form prior to its usage, currently estimated to be fall 2010.
Section 694.20--When May a GEAR UP Grantee Provide Services to Students
Attending an Institution of Higher Education?
Under the proposed regulations, GEAR UP applicants would be
permitted to request in their applications a seventh year of funding so
that the State or Partnership may continue to provide services to
students through their first year of attendance at an institution of
higher education.
We estimate that the proposed changes would increase burden by 300
hours in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW12 for each GEAR UP applicant for a
total burden increase of 150,000 hours. A separate 30-day Federal
Register notice will be published to solicit public comment on the
revised application form prior to its usage, currently estimated to be
fall 2010.
Consistent with this discussion, the following chart describes the
sections of the proposed regulations involving information collections,
the information being collected, and the collections that the
Department will submit to OMB for approval and public comment under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
[[Page 13871]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation section Information section Collection OMB Control No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 642.21 and 642.25 (Training) The proposed regulations would amend the 1840-NEW1 (Training) This is
selection criteria the Secretary uses to a new collection. The
evaluate an application for a Training Department has submitted the
grant. The proposed regulations also new application form for
would add a new section that establishes public comment to be used
processes and procedures for a review of for the next competition for
unsuccessful applications. new Training grants
scheduled for spring/summer
2010.
The proposed regulations
would affect applicant
burden in two ways. First,
the proposed elimination of
the Need selection criterion
would reduce the amount of
information an applicant
must include in its
application, resulting in an
estimated burden reduction
of 240 hours.
Additionally, the proposed
regulatory processes and
procedures for a second
review of unsuccessful
applications would lead to
an estimated burden increase
of 12 hours (or, an
estimated two burden hour
increase for each of the
estimated six applicants
that will fall within an
estimated 10 percent funding
band under the second review
process).
In total, there would be an
estimated decrease in burden
of 228 hours.
Sections 643.21 and 643.24 (TS)...... The proposed regulations would amend the 1840-NEW2 (TS) This would be
selection criteria the Secretary uses to a new collection. A separate
evaluate an application for a TS grant. 30-day Federal Register
The proposed regulations also would add a notice will be published to
new section that establishes processes solicit comments on this
and procedures for a review of form prior to the next
unsuccessful applications. competition for new grants
scheduled for fall 2010.
The Department does not
expect that proposed
amendments to the selection
criteria would change an
applicant's paperwork
burden. The proposed
regulatory processes and
procedures for a second
review of unsuccessful
applications would lead to
an estimated burden increase
of 60 hours (or, an
estimated two burden hour
increase for each of the
estimated 30 applicants that
will fall within an
estimated two percent
funding band under the
second review process).
In total, there would be an
estimated burden increase of
60 hours.
Sections 644.21 and 644.24 (EOC)..... The proposed regulations would amend the 1840-NEW3 (EOC) This would be
selection criteria the Secretary uses to a new collection. A separate
evaluate an application for an EOC grant. 30-day Federal Register
The proposed regulations also would add a notice will be published to
new section that establishes processes solicit comments on this
and procedures for a review of form prior to the next
unsuccessful applications. competition for new grants
scheduled for fall 2010.
The Department does not
expect that proposed
amendments to the selection
criteria would change an
applicant's paperwork
burden. The proposed
regulatory processes and
procedures for a second
review of unsuccessful
applications would lead to
an estimated burden increase
of 20 hours (or, an
estimated two burden hour
increase for each of the
estimated 10 applicants that
will fall within an
estimated two percent
funding band under the
second review process).
In total, there would be an
estimated burden increase of
20 hours.
Sections 645.31 and 645.35 (UB)...... The proposed regulations would amend the 1840-NEW4 (UB) This would be
selection criteria the Secretary uses to a new collection. A separate
evaluate an application for a UB grant. 30-day Federal Register
The proposed regulations also would add a notice will be published to
new section that establishes processes solicit comments on this
and procedures for a review of form prior to the next
unsuccessful applications. competition for new grants
scheduled for fall 2010 or
2011.
The Department does not
expect that proposed
amendments to the selection
criteria would change an
applicant's paperwork
burden. The proposed
regulatory processes and
procedures for a second
review of unsuccessful
applications would lead to
an estimated burden increase
of 80 hours (or, an
estimated two burden hour
increase for each of the
estimated 40 applicants that
will fall within an
estimated two percent
funding band under the
second review process).
In total, there would be an
estimated burden increase of
80 hours.
[[Page 13872]]
Sections 646.11; 646.21 and 646.24 The proposed regulations would amend the 1840-NEW5 (SSS) This would be
(SSS). selection criteria the Secretary uses to a new collection. A separate
evaluate an application for a SSS grant 30-day Federal Register
and amend the assurance and other notice will be published to
information an applicant must include in solicit comments on this
its application. form prior to the next
The proposed regulations also would add a competition for new grants
new section that establishes processes scheduled for fall 2013.
and procedures for a review of The Department does not
unsuccessful applications. expect that proposed
amendments to the selection
criteria or the assurance
and other information an
applicant must include in
its application would change
an applicant's paperwork
burden. The proposed
regulatory processes and
procedures for a second
review of unsuccessful
applications would lead to
an estimated burden increase
of 66 hours (or, an
estimated two burden hour
increase for each of the
estimated 33 applicants that
will fall within an
estimated two percent
funding band under the
second review process).
In total, there would be an
estimated burden increase of
66 hours.
Sections 647.21 and 647.24 (McNair).. The proposed regulations would amend the 1840-NEW6 (McNair) This would
selection criteria the Secretary uses to be a new collection. A
evaluate an application for a McNair separate 30-day Federal
grant. Register notice will be
The proposed regulations also would add a published to solicit
new section that establishes processes comments on this form prior
and procedures for a review of to the next competition for
unsuccessful applications. new grants scheduled for
fall 2010 or 2011.
The Department does not
expect that proposed
amendments to the selection
criteria would change an
applicant's paperwork
burden. The proposed
regulatory processes and
procedures for a second
review of unsuccessful
applications would lead to
an estimated burden increase
of 16 hours (or, an
estimated two burden hour
increase for each of the
estimated eight applicants
that will fall within an
estimated two percent
funding band under the
second review process).
In total, there would be an
estimated burden increase of
16 hours.
Section 642.22 (Training)............ The proposed regulations would amend the 1894-0003 (Training) The
prior experience (PE) criteria the Department would continue to
Secretary uses to award PE points. Under use the Department's generic
the proposed regulations, we would award performance report for the
PE points for each criterion by Training program. Proposed
determining whether the grantee met or changes would be editorial
exceeded applicable project objectives. in nature.
This determination would be based on the There would be no increase in
information the grantee submits in its estimated burden hours.
annual performance report.
Sections 643.22 (TS) and 643.32...... The proposed regulations would amend the 1840-NEW7 (TS) This would be
prior experience (PE) criteria the a new collection. A separate
Secretary uses to award PE points. Under 60-day Federal Register
the proposed regulations we would award notice will be published to
PE points for each criterion by solicit comments on this
determining whether the grantee met or form following the next
exceeded applicable project objectives. competition for new TS
This determination would be based on the grants.
information the grantee submits in its The revised APR is needed for
annual performance report. fall 2012 data collection.
The proposed regulations also amend the The proposed regulations
recordkeeping requirements for TS. would increase grantee data
collection and reporting
requirements in two ways.
First, the proposed
regulatory amendments to the
PE criteria, which address
statutory changes that
expand outcome and PE
criteria for TS grantees to
include such measures as the
postsecondary completion of
participants, are expected
to increase grantees'
reporting burden.
Additionally, the proposed
regulatory amendments to
recordkeeping requirements
would require grantees to
maintain a list of courses
taken by participants
receiving support to
complete a rigorous
secondary school program of
study, a new data collection
that would also increase
grantees' burden hours. The
Department expects these two
proposed changes to result
in an increase of 15 burden
hours per grantee.
In total, there would be an
estimated burden increase of
7,050 hours.
[[Page 13873]]
Section 644.22 (EOC)................. The proposed regulations would amend the 1840-NEW8 (EOC) This would be
prior experience (PE) criteria the a new collection. A separate
Secretary uses to award PE points. Under 60-day Federal Register
the proposed regulations we would award notice will be published to
PE points for each criterion by solicit comments on this
determining whether the grantee met or form following the next
exceeded applicable project objectives. competition for new EOC
This determination would be based on the grants. The revised APR is
information the grantee submits in its needed for fall 2012 data
annual performance report. collection.
Because the new statutory PE
criteria are similar to the
current regulatory PE
criteria, the Department
does not expect the proposed
changes to affect the burden
on EOC grantees.
However, the Department
expects that burden hours
would be reduced as a result
of the development of a new
TS APR form, since such a
form would allow the current
TS/EOC APR form to be used
exclusively by EOC grantees.
In total, there would be an
estimated burden decrease of
2,820 hours.
Section 645.32 (UB).................. The proposed regulations would amend the 1840-NEW9 (UB) This would be
prior experience (PE) criteria the a new collection. A separate
Secretary uses to award PE points. Under 60-day Federal Register
the proposed regulations we would award notice will be published to
PE points for each criterion by solicit comments on this
determining whether the grantee met or form following the next
exceeded applicable project objectives. competition for new UB
This determination would be based on the grants. The revised APR is
information the grantee submits in its needed for fall 2012 or 2013
annual performance report. data collection.
The proposed regulatory
amendments to the PE
criteria, which address
statutory changes that
expand outcome and PE
criteria for UB grantees to
include such measures as the
postsecondary completion of
participants, are expected
to increase grantees'
reporting burden. The
Department expects proposed
changes to result in an
increase of six burden hours
per grantee.
In total, there would be an
estimated burden increase of
6,858 hours.
Sections 646.22 and 646.33 (SSS)..... The proposed regulations would amend the 1840-NEW10 (SSS) This would
prior experience (PE) criteria the be a new collection. A
Secretary uses to award PE points. Under separate 60-day Federal
the proposed regulations we would award Register notice will be
PE points for each criterion by published to solicit
determining whether the grantee met or comments on this form
exceeded applicable project objectives. following the next
This determination would be based on the competition for new SSS
information the grantee submits in its grants. The revised APR is
annual performance report. needed for fall 2011 data
The proposed regulations also add a new collection.
section on matching requirements for SSS. The proposed regulations
would increase grantee data
collection and reporting
requirements in two ways.
First, the proposed
regulatory amendments to the
PE criteria, which address
statutory requirements for
tracking the academic
progress of SSS participants
through degree completion,
would increase the reporting
burden by six hours for each
grantee. Additionally, for
those grantees that are
required to provide matching
funds for grant aid
(estimated at 50 percent of
SSS grantees), the proposed
regulations would increase
burden by an estimated two
hours per grantee. In total,
there would be an estimated
burden increase of 6,720
hours.
Section 647.22 (McNair).............. The proposed regulations would amend the 1840-NEW11 (McNair) This
prior experience (PE) criteria the would be a new collection. A
Secretary uses to award PE points. Under separate 60-day Federal
the proposed regulations we would award Register notice will be
PE points for each criterion by published to solicit
determining whether the grantee met or comments on this form
exceeded applicable project objectives. following the next
This determination would be based on the competition for new McNair
information the grantee submits in its grants. The revised APR is
annual performance report. needed for fall 2012 or 2013
data collection.
The proposed regulatory
amendments to the PE
criteria, which address
statutory requirements for
long-term tracking of the
academic progress of McNair
participants through
completion of the doctoral
degree, would increase the
reporting burden by four
hours for each grantee. In
total, there would be an
estimated burden increase of
760 hours.
[[Page 13874]]
694.7, 694.8, and 694.9 GEAR UP...... The proposed regulations would provide 1840-NEW12 This would be a
that an applicant for GEAR UP funding new collection. A separate
must state in its application the 30-day Federal Register
percentage of the cost of the GEAR UP notice will be published to
project that the application will provide solicit comments on this
from non-Federal funds. form prior to the next
The proposed regulations also would competition for new grants
provide that the Secretary may waive a scheduled for fall 2010.
portion of the matching requirement in There would be an estimated
response to a written request for a burden increase of 6,250
waiver of the match. This written request hours.
can be included in the application or 1840-NEW13 This would be a
submitted separately. new collection. A separate
The proposed regulations also would 60-day Federal Register
provide the conditions that must be met notice will be published to
for the Secretary to approve a request to solicit comments on this
waive a portion of the matching form following the next
requirement. competition for new GEAR UP
grants. There would be an
estimated burden decrease of
7,860 hours.
1840-NEW14 This would be a
new collection. A separate
60-day Federal Register
notice will be published to
solicit comments on this
form following the next
competition for new GEAR UP
grants. There would be an
estimated burden decrease of
5,625 hours.
The proposed regulations
provide that an applicant
for GEAR UP funding must
state in its application the
percentage of the cost of
the GEAR UP project that the
applicant will provide from
non-Federal funds. The
proposed regulations also
provide that the Secretary
may waive a portion of the
matching requirement in
response to a grantee's
written request for a waiver
of the match. The proposed
regulations further provide
the conditions that must be
met for the Secretary to
approve a request to waive a
portion of the matching
requirement and that if the
Secretary grants a tentative
waiver to a new grantee for
the full project period
because of a pre-existing or
ongoing economic hardship,
the recipient will need to
submit documentation every
two years to demonstrate
that conditions have not
changed.
694.14(c)............................ The proposed regulations would require 1840-NEW13 This would be a
grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant new collection. A separate
awards were made on or after August 14, 60-day Federal Register
2008 and grantees whose initial GEAR UP notice will be published to
grant awards were made prior to August solicit comments on this
14, 2008 to furnish information on the form following the next
amount of any Federal and non-Federal competition for new GEAR UP
funds reserved and held for GEAR UP grants. There would be an
scholarships and the disbursement of estimated burden increase of
these scholarship funds until these funds 8,760 hours.
are fully expended or returned to the 1840-NEW14 This would be a
Secretary. new collection. A separate
60-day Federal Register
notice will be published to
solicit comments on this
form following the next
competition for new GEAR
grants. There will be an
estimated burden increase of
6,925 hours.
The proposed regulations
require grantees whose
initial GEAR UP grant awards
were made on or after August
14, 2008 and grantees whose
initial GEAR UP grant awards
were made prior to August
14, 2008, to provide
information as the Secretary
may require on the amount of
any Federal and non-Federal
funds reserved and held for
GEAR UP scholarships and the
disbursement of these
scholarship funds. Reporting
would be required until
these funds are fully
expended or, if Federal
funds, returned to the
Secretary.
694.19............................... The proposed regulations provide that the 1840-NEW12 This would be a
Secretary awards competitive preference new collection. A separate
priority points to an eligible applicant 30-day Federal Register
for a State grant that has carried out a notice will be published to
successful State GEAR UP grant prior to solicit comments on this
August 14, 2008 and has a prior, form prior to the next
demonstrated commitment to early competition for new grants
intervention, leading to college access scheduled for fall 2010.
through collaboration and replication of There would be an estimated
successful strategies. burden increase of 6,250
hours.
The proposed regulations
would provide that the
Secretary awards competitive
preference priority points
to an eligible applicant for
a State grant that has
carried out a successful
State GEAR UP grant prior to
August 14, 2008 and has a
prior, demonstrated
commitment to early
intervention leading to
college access through
collaboration and
replication of successful
strategies.
[[Page 13875]]
694.20............................... Under the proposed regulations, GEAR UP 1840-NEW12 This would be a
applicants would be permitted to request new collection. A separate
in their applications a seventh year of 30-day Federal Register
funding so that the State or Partnership notice will be published to
may continue to provide services to solicit comments on this
students through their first year of form prior to the next
attendance at an institution of higher competition for new grants
education. scheduled for fall 2010.
Burden would increase by 300
hours.
Under the proposed
regulations, GEAR UP
applicants would be
permitted to request in
their applications a seventh
year of funding so that the
State or Partnership may
continue to provide services
to students through their
first year of attendance at
an institution of higher
education.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to comment on the proposed information collection
requirements, please send your comments to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S.
Department of Education. Send these comments by e-mail to [email protected] or by fax to (202) 395-6974. You may also send a
copy of these comments to the Department contact named in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble.
We consider your comments on these proposed collections of
information in--
Deciding whether the proposed collections are necessary
for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the
information will have practical use;
Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of
the proposed collections, including the validity of our methodology and
assumptions;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information we collect; and
Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration,
it is important that OMB receives the comments within 30 days of
publication. This does not affect the deadline for your comments to us
on the proposed regulations.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the
Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, we intend this document to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
these programs.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions
Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests comments on
whether these proposed regulations would require transmission of
information that any other agency or authority of the United States
gathers or makes available.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: 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: March 3, 2010.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary proposes
to amend parts 206, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, and 694 of title 34
of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 206--SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES
ARE ENGAGED IN MIGRANT AND OTHER SEASONAL FARMWORK--HIGH SCHOOL
EQUIVALENCY PROGRAM AND COLLEGE ASSISTANCE MIGRANT PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 206 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 206.3 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the word ``parent'' and adding, in
its place, the words ``immediate family member''.
B. Revising paragraph (a)(2).
The revision reads as follows:
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).
* * * * *
3. Section 206.4 is amended by:
A. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) as paragraphs (a)(7)
and (a)(8), respectively.
B. Adding a new paragraph (a)(6).
C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(9) through (a)(11).
The additions read as follows:
[[Page 13876]]
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).
* * * * *
4. Section 206.5 is amended by:
A. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(5), (c)(6), and (c)(7) as
paragraphs (c)(6), (c)(7), and (c)(8), respectively.
B. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).
C. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(7), removing the citation
``(c)(7)'' and adding, in its place, the citation ``(c)(8)''.
D. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (c)(8).
E. In paragraph (d)--
1. Removing the citation ``34 CFR 201.3'' and adding, in its place,
the citation ``34 CFR 200.81''; and
2. Removing the words ``Chapter 1'' and adding, in their place, the
words ``Title I''.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
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.
* * * * *
5. Section 206.10 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B), adding the words ``(including
preparation for college entrance examinations)'' after the word
``program''.
B. In paragraph (b)(1)(v), removing the words ``Weekly stipends''
and adding, in their place, the word ``Stipends''.
C. In paragraph (b)(1)(viii), adding the words ``(such as
transportation and child care)'' after the word ``services''.
D. In paragraph (b)(1), adding a new paragraph (ix).
E. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii) introductory text, adding the words ``to
improve placement, persistence, and retention in postsecondary
education'' after the word ``services''.
F. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A), by--
1. Removing the word ``and''; and
2. Adding the words ``economic education, or personal finance''
before the word ``counseling''.
G. Redesignating paragraph (b)(2)(vi) as paragraph (b)(2)(vii).
H. Adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(vi).
I. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(2)(vii), removing the words
``support services'', and adding, in their place, the words ``essential
supportive services (such as transportation and child care),''.
The additions read as follows:
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.
* * * * *
6. Section 206.11 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the word ``and'' after the
punctuation``;''.
B. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the punctuation ``.'' after the
word ``aid'' and adding, in its place, the words ``, and coordinating
those services, assistance, and aid with other non-program services,
assistance, and aid, including services, assistance, and aid provided
by community-based organizations, which may include mentoring and
guidance; and''.
C. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3).
The addition reads as follows:
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]
7. Section 206.20(b)(2) is amended by removing the amount
``$150,000'' and adding, in its place, the amount ``$180,000''.
8. Section 206.31 is added to subpart D of part 206 to read as
follows:
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.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2(e))
PART 642--TRAINING PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL TRIO PROGRAMS
9. The authority citation for part 642 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-17, unless otherwise
noted.
[[Page 13877]]
Subpart A of Part 642--[Amended]
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)
11. Section 642.2 is amended by revising the section heading to
read as follows:
Sec. 642.2 Who are eligible applicants?
* * * * *
12. Section 642.3 is amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
B. In paragraph (a), adding the word ``funded'' after the word
``projects''.
C. In paragraph (b) by removing the words ``staff or''; adding the
words ``or staff'' after the word ``personnel''; and adding the word
``funded'' after the word ``projects''.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 642.3 Who are eligible participants?
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 642.4 and 642.5 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec. 642.5 and
642.6]
13. Sections 642.4 and 642.5 are redesignated as Sec. Sec. 642.5
and 642.6.
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-17(b))
15. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.5 is amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
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. 75.215-75.221),
77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
16. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.6 is amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
B. In paragraph (b) by revising the introductory text; revising
definitions of ``Federal TRIO programs'', ``Institution of higher
education'', ``Leadership personnel''; adding, in alphabetical order,
new definitions for ``Foster care youth'', ``Homeless children and
youth'', ``Individual with disabilities'', and ``Veteran''; and
removing the authority citation following the definition of ``Federal
TRIO programs''; and
C. Adding an authority citation at the end of the section.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
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 disabilities means a person who has a diagnosed
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits that person's
ability to participate in educational experiences and opportunities.
* * * * *
Institution of higher education means an educational institution as
defined in sections 101 and 102 of the Act.
Leadership personnel means project directors, coordinators, and
other individuals involved with the supervision and direction of
projects funded under the Federal TRIO programs.
Veteran means a person who--
(1) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States for a period of more than 180 days and was discharged or
released under conditions other than dishonorable;
(2) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States and was discharged or released because of a service
connected disability;
(3) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the
United States and was called to active duty for a period of more than
30 days; or
(4) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the
United States who served on active duty in support of a contingency
operation (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10,
United States Code) on or after September 11, 2001.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., 1070a-11, 1070-17(b), 1088,
1141, and 1144a)
17. Section 642.7 is added to subpart A of part 642 to read as
follows:
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 that is designated in the Federal Register
notice inviting applications.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d, 1070d-1d; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
18. Subpart B of part 642 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart B--What Types of Projects and Activities Does the Secretary
Assist under this Program?
Sec.
642.10 What types of projects does the Secretary assist?
642.11 What activities does the Secretary assist?
642.12 What activities may a project conduct?
Subpart B--What Types of Projects and Activities Does the Secretary
Assist under this Program?
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.
(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
[[Page 13878]]
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]
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]
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.
21. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.20 is amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
B. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), removing the citation
``Sec. 642.31'' and adding, in its place, the citation ``Sec.
642.21''.
C. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the number ``100'' and adding, in
its place, the number ``75''.
D. Revising paragraph (b).
E. Adding new paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
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.
* * * * *
22. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.21 is amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(v)(C).
C. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(C).
D. Removing paragraph (f).
E. Adding an OMB control number parenthetical following the
section.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
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)
* * * * *
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 the approved number of participants.
(e) The Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the basis of the
following criteria:
(1) (4 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant
provided training to the approved number of participants.
(2) Training objectives. Whether the applicant met or exceeded its
objectives for:
(i) (4 points) Assisting the participants in developing increased
qualifications and skills to meet the needs of disadvantaged students.
(ii) (4 points) Providing the participants with an increased
knowledge and understanding of the Federal TRIO Programs.
(3) (3 points) Administrative requirements. Whether the applicant
met all the administrative requirements under the terms of the expiring
grant, including recordkeeping, reporting, and financial
accountability.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1894-0003.)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)
24. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.23 is amended by revising the
section heading to read as follows:
Sec. 642.23 How does the Secretary ensure geographic distribution of
awards?
* * * * *
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:
[[Page 13879]]
(1) Basic skills instruction in reading, mathematics, written and
oral communication, and study skills.
(2) Counseling.
(3) Assessment of student needs.
(4) Academic tests and testing.
(5) College and university admissions policies and procedures.
(6) Cultural enrichment programs.
(7) Career planning.
(8) Tutorial programs.
(9) Retention and graduation strategies.
(10) Strategies for preparing students for doctoral studies.
(11) Project evaluation.
(12) Budget management.
(13) Personnel management.
(14) Reporting student and project performance.
(15) Coordinating project activities with other available resources
and activities.
(16) General project management for new directors.
(17) Statutory and regulatory requirements for the operation of
projects funded under the Federal TRIO programs.
(18) Assisting students in receiving adequate financial aid from
programs assisted under title IV of the Act and from other programs.
(19) The design and operation of model programs for projects funded
under the Federal TRIO programs.
(20) The use of appropriate educational technology in the operation
of projects funded under the Federal TRIO programs.
(21) Strategies for recruiting and serving hard to reach
populations, including students who are limited English proficient,
students from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary education, students who are individuals with
disabilities, students who are homeless children and youths, students
who are foster care youth, or other disconnected students.
(b) The Secretary annually funds training on the subjects listed in
paragraphs (a)(17), (18), (19), (20), and (21) of this section.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-17)
26. Section 642.25 is added to subpart C of part 642 to read as
follows:
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 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
[[Page 13880]]
section and whose application received a score within the funding band
as described in paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second
review if the applicant demonstrates that the Department, the
Department's agent, or a peer reviewer made an administrative or
scoring error as discussed in paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first
review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose
application received a score within the funding band as described in
paragraph (d) of this section has 15 calendar days after receiving
notification that its application was not funded in which to submit a
written request for a second review in accordance with the instructions
and due date provided in the Secretary's written notification.
(6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be
received by the Department or submitted electronically to a designated
e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established by the
Secretary.
(7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the
Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE
points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section,
the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct
number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application
would have resulted in funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds
the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the
second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of
this section.
(8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the
Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error
that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer
reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score
assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the
application during the competition and the program has funds available,
the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer review of applications described
in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring
error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary
convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the
requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
(10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer
review are used in the second ranking of applications. The average
score obtained from the second peer review panel is the final peer
reviewer score for the application and will be used even if the second
review results in a lower score for the application than that obtained
in the initial review.
(11) For applications in the funding band, the Secretary funds
these applications in rank order based on adjusted scores and the
available funds that have been set aside for the second review of
applications.
(d) Process for establishing a funding band. (1) For each
competition, the Secretary establishes a funding band for the second
review of applications.
(2) The Secretary establishes the funding band for each competition
based on the amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second
review of applications.
(3) The funding band is composed of those applications--
(i) With a rank-order score before the second review that is below
the lowest score of applications funded after the first review; and
(ii) That would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the
funds that were set aside for the second review of applications for the
competition.
(e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary's determination of whether
the applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the
Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application are final and not
subject to further appeal or challenge.
(2) An application that scored below the established funding band
for the competition is not eligible for a second review.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1840-NEW1.)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)
27. A new Sec. 642.26 is added 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. 642.40 and 642.41 [Redesignated as Sec. 642.30 and 642.31]
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.
29. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.30 is amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
B. In paragraph (d), removing the words ``if approved in writing by
the Secretary''.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 642.30 What are allowable costs?
* * * * *
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
31. The authority citation for part 643 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-12, unless otherwise
noted.
32. Section 643.1 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``, and facilitate the
application for,'' after the word ``of''.
B. Revising paragraph (c).
The revision reads as follows:
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.
* * * * *
33. Section 643.2 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text, adding the word ``entities'' after the
word ``following''.
B. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``, including a community-
based organization with experience in serving disadvantaged youth''
after the word ``organization''.
C. Removing paragraph (d).
D. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d).
E. Adding a new paragraph (c).
F. In newly redesignated paragraph (d), removing the words
``paragraphs (a) and (b)'' and adding, in their place, the words
``paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)''.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 643.2 Who is eligible for a grant?
* * * * *
(c) A secondary school.
* * * * *
[[Page 13881]]
34. Section 643.3 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(3)(i), removing the words ``, has potential for
a program of postsecondary education, and needs one or more of the
services provided by the project in order to undertake such a
program''.
B. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), removing the words ``, has the ability
to complete such a program, and needs one or more of the services
provided by the project to reenter such a program''.
C. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c).
D. Adding a new paragraph (b).
E. In newly redesignated paragraph (c), removing the citation
``643.6(b)'' and adding, in its place, the citation ``643.7(b)''.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 643.3 Who is eligible to participate in a project?
* * * * *
(b) An individual is eligible to receive support to complete a
rigorous secondary school program of study if the individual meets the
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, is accepted into the
Talent Search project by the end of the first term of the tenth grade,
is enrolled or is preparing to enroll in a rigorous secondary school
program of study, as defined by his or her State of residence, and is
designated as enrolled in a rigorous secondary school program of study
on reports submitted by the grantee to the Secretary.
* * * * *
35. Section 643.4 is revised to read as follows:
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 literacy and economic
literacy of the participants or the participants' parents, including
financial planning for postsecondary education.
(b) A Talent Search project may provide services such as the
following:
(1) Academic tutoring, which may include instruction in reading,
writing, study skills, mathematics, science, and other subjects.
(2) Personal and career counseling or activities.
(3) Information and activities designed to acquaint youth with the
range of career options available to the youth.
(4) Exposure to the campuses of institutions of higher education,
as well as to cultural events, academic programs, and other sites or
activities not usually available to disadvantaged youth.
(5) Workshops and counseling for families of participants served.
(6) Mentoring programs involving elementary or secondary school
teachers or counselors, faculty members at institutions of higher
education, students, or any combination of these persons.
(7) Programs and activities as described in this section that are
specially designed for participants who are limited English proficient,
from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary
education, individuals with disabilities, homeless children and youths,
foster care youth, or other disconnected participants.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-12)
36. Section 643.5 is revised to read as follows:
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)
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. 75.215-75.221),
77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
38. Section 643.7(b) is amended by:
A. Revising the definition of ``Institution of higher education''.
B. Revising the definition of ``Veteran''.
C. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for ``Different
population'', ``Financial and economic literacy'', ``Foster care
youth'', ``Homeless children and youth'', ``Individuals with
disabilities'', ``Regular secondary school diploma'', and ``Rigorous
secondary school diploma''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
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, including but 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 education (e.g., spending,
saving, personal budgeting);
(4) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition
vs. fees, personal costs);
(5) Scholarship, grant, and loan education (e.g., searches,
application processes, and differences between private and government
loans); and
(6) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA).
Foster care youth means youth who are in foster care or are aging
out of the foster care system. * * *
Homeless children and youth means persons defined in section 725 of
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434(a)).
Individual with disabilities means a person who has a diagnosed
physical or mental impairment that substantially
[[Page 13882]]
limits that person's ability to participate in educational experiences
and opportunities.
Institution of higher education means an educational institution as
defined in sections 101 and 102 of the HEA. * * *
Regular secondary school diploma means a level attained by
individuals who meet or exceed the coursework and performance standards
for high school completion established by the individual's State.
Rigorous secondary school program of study means a program of study
that is--
(1) Established by a State educational agency (SEA) or local
educational agency (LEA) and recognized as a rigorous secondary school
program of study by the Secretary through the process described in 34
CFR Sec. 691.16(a) through Sec. 691.16(c) for the ACG Program;
(2) An advanced or honors secondary school program established by
States and in existence for the 2004-2005 school year or later school
years;
(3) Any secondary school program in which a student successfully
completes at a minimum the following courses:
(i) Four years of English.
(ii) Three years of mathematics, including algebra I and a higher-
level class such as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and
statistics.
(iii) Three years of science, including one year each of at least
two of the following courses: biology, chemistry, and physics.
(iv) Three years of social studies.
(v) One year of a language other than English;
(4) A secondary school program identified by a State-level
partnership that is recognized by the State Scholars Initiative of the
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), Boulder,
Colorado;
(5) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at
least two courses from an International Baccalaureate Diploma Program
sponsored by the International Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland, and receives a score of a ``4'' or higher on the
examinations for at least two of those courses; or
(6) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at
least two Advanced Placement courses and receives a score of ``3'' or
higher on the College Board's Advanced Placement Program Exams for at
least two of those courses. * * *
Veteran means a person who--
(1) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States for a period of more than 180 days and was discharged or
released under conditions other than dishonorable;
(2) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States and was discharged or released because of a service
connected disability;
(3) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the
United States and was called to active duty for a period of more than
30 days; or
(4) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the
United States who served on active duty in support of a contingency
operation (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10,
United States Code) on or after September 11, 2001.
* * * * *
Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?
39. Subpart B of part 643 is amended by revising the subpart
heading to read as set forth above.
Sec. 643.10 [Redesignated as Sec. 643.11]
39a. Redesignate Sec. 643.10 as Sec. 643.11.
40. A new Sec. 643.10 is added 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)
41. Newly redesignated Sec. 643.11 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text, removing the word ``shall'' and
adding, in its place, the word ``must''.
B. In paragraph (a), adding the words ``, and at least two-thirds
of the participants selected to receive support for a rigorous
secondary school program of study,'' after the words ``Talent Search
project''.
C. Revising paragraph (b). The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 643.11 What assurances must an applicant submit?
* * * * *
(b) Individuals who are receiving services from another Talent
Search project; a Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) project under 34 CFR part 694; a
Regular Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math and Science Centers, or
Veterans Upward Bound project under 34 CFR part 645; an Educational
Opportunity Centers project under 34 CFR part 644; or other programs
serving similar populations will not receive the same services under
the proposed project.
* * * * *
42. Section 643.20 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the words ``in delivering
services'' and adding, in their place, the words ``of high quality
service delivery (PE)''.
B. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding the word ``total'' after the
word ``maximum'' the first time it appears.
C. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).
D. Removing paragraph (a)(3).
E. In paragraph (b), removing the words ``through (3)'' and adding,
in their place, the words ``and (a)(2)''.
F. Revising paragraph (d).
The additions and revision read as follows:
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.
* * * * *
43. Section 643.21 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).
B. Revising paragraph (d)(2).
C. In the OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (g),
removing the numbers ``1840-0549'' and adding, in their place, the
numbers ``1840-0065''.
The revisions read as follows:
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 13883]]
which the application contains clear evidence of the following:
(1) (6 points) A high number or high percentage of the following--
(i) Low-income families residing in the target area; or
(ii) Students attending the target schools who are eligible for
free or reduced priced lunch as described in sections 9(b)(1) and
17(c)(4) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
(2) (2 points) Low rates of high school persistence among
individuals in the target schools as evidenced by the annual student
persistence rates in the proposed target schools for the most recent
year for which data are available.
(3) (4 points) Low rates of students in the target school's
graduating high school with a regular secondary school diploma in the
standard number of years for the most recent year for which data are
available.
(4) (6 points) Low postsecondary enrollment and completion rates
among individuals in the target area and schools as evidenced by--
(i) Low rates of enrollment in programs of postsecondary education
by graduates of the target schools in the most recent year for which
data are available; and
(ii) A high number or high percentage of individuals residing in
the target area with education completion levels below the
baccalaureate degree level.
(5) (2 points) The extent to which the target secondary schools do
not offer their students the courses or academic support to complete a
rigorous secondary school program of study or have low participation by
low-income or first generation students in such courses.
(6) (4 points) Other indicators of need for a Talent Search
project, including a high ratio of students to school counselors in the
target schools and the presence of unaddressed academic or socio-
economic problems of eligible individuals, including foster care youth
and homeless children and youth, in the target schools or the target
area.
(b) Objectives (8 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of
the applicant's objectives and proposed targets (percentages) in the
following areas on the basis of the extent to which they are both
ambitious, as related to the Need data provided under paragraph (a) of
this section, and attainable, given the project's plan of operation,
budget, and other resources:
(1) (2 points) Secondary school persistence.
(2) (2 points) Secondary school graduation (regular secondary
school diploma).
(3) (1 point) Secondary school graduation (rigorous secondary
school program of study).
(4) (2 points) Postsecondary education enrollment.
(5) (1 point) Postsecondary degree attainment.
(c) Plan of operation (30 points). The Secretary evaluates the
quality of the applicant's plan of operation on the basis of the
following:
(1) (3 points) The plan to inform the residents, schools, and
community organizations in the target area of the purpose, objectives,
and services of the project and the eligibility requirements for
participation in the project.
(2) (3 points) The plan to identify and select eligible project
participants, including the project's plan and criteria for selecting
individuals who would receive support to complete a rigorous secondary
school program of study.
(3) (10 points) The plan for providing the services delineated in
Sec. 643.4 as appropriate based on the project's assessment of each
participant's need for services.
(4) (6 points) For those students in need of services to complete a
rigorous secondary school program of study, the project's plan to
provide services sufficient to enable the participants to succeed.
(5) (6 points) The plan, including timelines, personnel, and other
resources, to ensure the proper and efficient administration of the
project, including the project's organizational structure; the time
commitment of key project staff; financial, personnel, and records
management; and, where appropriate, coordination with other programs
for disadvantaged youth.
(6) (2 points) The plan to follow former participants as they
enter, continue in, and complete postsecondary education.
(d) * * *
(2) (8 points) Resources secured through written commitments from
institutions of higher education, secondary schools, community
organizations, and others.
* * * * *
44. Section 643.22 is revised to read as follows:
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) For the criterion specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section
(Number of participants), the Secretary does not award any PE points if
the applicant did not serve the approved number of participants.
(d) For purposes of the evaluation of grants awarded after January
1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the basis of the
following outcome criteria:
(1) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant
provided services to the approved number of participants.
(2) (3 points) Secondary school persistence. Whether the applicant
met or exceeded its objective regarding the continued secondary school
enrollment of participants.
(3) (3 points) Secondary school graduation (regular secondary
school diploma). Whether the applicant met or exceeded its objective
regarding the graduation of current and prior participants from
secondary school with a regular secondary school diploma in the
standard number of years.
(4) (1.5 points) Secondary school graduation (rigorous secondary
school program of study). Whether the applicant met or exceeded its
objective regarding the percentage of current and prior participants
with an expected high school graduation date in the school year who
were enrolled in and completed a rigorous secondary school program of
study.
(5) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its objective regarding the percentage of current and prior
participants with an expected high school graduation date in the school
year who enrolled in an institution of higher education by the fall
term immediately following the school year.
(6) (1.5 points) Postsecondary completion. Whether the applicant
met or exceeded its objective regarding the completion of a program of
postsecondary education within the
[[Page 13884]]
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]
45. Section 643.23 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text of paragraph (b), removing the words
``beginning in fiscal year 1994''.
B. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the amount ``$180,000'' and
adding, in its place, the amount ``$200,000''.
46. A new 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 discussed in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first
review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose
application received a score within the funding band as described in
paragraph (d) of this section has 15 calendar days after receiving
notification that its application was not funded in which to submit a
written request for a second review in accordance with the instructions
and due date provided in the Secretary's written notification.
(6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be
received by the Department or submitted electronically to the
designated e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established
by the Secretary.
(7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the
Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE
points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section,
the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct
number of PE
[[Page 13885]]
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)
47. Section 643.30 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``34 CFR part 74,
subpart Q'' and adding, in their place, the words ``34 CFR 74.27,
75.530, and 80.22, as applicable''.
B. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), adding the word
``project'' before the word ``staff''.
C. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the words ``to obtain information
relating to the admission of participants to those institutions''.
D. In paragraph (a)(2), removing the word ``and''.
E. In paragraph (a)(3)by adding the words ``for participants''
after the word ``trips''; removing the words ``in the target area'';
and removing the punctuation ``.'' at the end of the paragraph and
adding, in its place, the words ``; and''.
F. Adding a new paragraph (a)(4).
G. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``and test preparation
programs for participants'' after the word ``materials''.
H. Revising paragraph (f).
I. Adding new paragraphs (g) and (h).
The revision and additions read as follows:
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.
* * * * *
(f) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware, software, and
other equipment and supplies that support the delivery of services to
participants, including technology used by participants in a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
(g) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer equipment and software
needed for project administration and recordkeeping.
(h) Tuition costs for a course that is part of a rigorous secondary
school program of study if--
(1) The course or a similar course is not offered at the secondary
school that the participant attends or at another school within the
school district;
(2) The grantee demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction that
using grant funds is the most cost-effective way to deliver the course
or courses necessary for the completion of a rigorous secondary school
program of study for program participants;
(3) The course is taken at an institution of higher education;
(4) The course is comparable in content and rigor to courses that
are part of a rigorous secondary school program of study as defined in
Sec. 643.7(b);
(5) The secondary school accepts the course as meeting one or more
of the course requirements for obtaining a high school diploma;
(6) A waiver of the tuition costs is unavailable;
(7) The tuition is paid with Talent Search grant funds to an
institution of higher education on behalf of a participant; and
(8) The Talent Search project pays for no more than the equivalent
of two courses for a participant each school year.
* * * * *
48. Section 643.31 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing the
phrase ``Tuition, stipends,'' and by adding ``Stipends'' in its place.
49. Section 643.32 is amended by:
A. Removing paragraph (b).
B. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).
C. In newly redesignated paragraph (b) introductory text, removing
the word ``shall'' and adding, in its place, the word ``must''.
D. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(3), removing the word
``and''.
E. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(4), removing the punctuation
``.'' and adding, in its place, the words ``; and''.
F. Adding a new paragraph (b)(5).
G. Adding a new paragraph (c).
H. Removing paragraph (d).
I. In the OMB control number parenthetical following newly added
paragraph (c), removing the numbers ``1840-0549'' and adding, in their
place, the numbers ``1840-NEW2''.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 643.32 What other requirements must a grantee meet?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) A list of courses taken by participants receiving support to
complete a rigorous secondary school
[[Page 13886]]
program of study as defined in Sec. 643.7(b).
(c) Project director. (1) A grantee must employ a full-time project
director unless--
(i) The director is also administering one or two additional
programs for disadvantaged students operated by the sponsoring
institution or agency; or
(ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of this requirement.
(2) The grantee must give the project director sufficient authority
to administer the project effectively.
(3) The Secretary waives the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section if the applicant demonstrates that the requirement to
administer no more than three programs will hinder effective
coordination between the Talent Search program and--
(i) One or more Federal TRIO programs (sections 402A through 402F
of the HEA); or
(ii) One or more similar programs funded through other sources.
* * * * *
PART 644--EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY CENTERS
50. The authority citation for part 644 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-16, unless otherwise
noted.
51. Section 644.1 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``to provide''.
B. In paragraph (a), removing the word ``Information'' and adding,
in its place, the words ``To provide information''; removing the word
``for'' and adding, in its place, the word ``to''; and removing the
word ``and'' that appears after the punctuation ``;''.
C. In paragraph (b), removing the word ``Assistance'' and adding,
in its place, the words ``To provide assistance''; and removing the
punctuation ``.'' at the end of the sentence and adding, in its place,
the word ``; and''.
D. Adding a new paragraph (c).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 644.1 What is the Educational Opportunity Centers program?
* * * * *
(c) To improve the financial literacy and economic literacy of
participants on topics such as--
(1) Basic personal income, household money management, and
financial planning skills; and
(2) Basic economic decision-making skills.
* * * * *
52. Section 644.2 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text of the section, adding the word
``entities'' after the word ``following''.
B. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``, including a community-
based organization with experience in serving disadvantaged youth''
after the word ``organization''.
C. Removing paragraph (d).
D. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d).
E. Adding a new paragraph (c).
F. In newly redesignated paragraph (d), removing the word ``and''
before the citation ``(b)'' and adding, in its place, the punctuation
``,''; and adding the words ``, and (c)'' after the citation ``(b)''.
The addition reads as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 644.2 Who is eligible for a grant?
* * * * *
(c) A secondary school.
* * * * *
53. Section 644.4 is amended by:
A. Redesignating paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k)
as paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l), respectively.
B. Adding a new paragraph (e).
C. In newly redesignated paragraph (g), removing the word
``Personal'' and adding, in its place, the words ``Individualized
personal, career, and academic''.
D. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (k).
The addition and revision read as follows:
Sec. 644.4 What services may a project provide?
* * * * *
(e) Education or counseling services designed to improve the
financial literacy and economic literacy of participants.
* * * * *
(k) Programs and activities described in this section that are
specially designed for participants who are limited English proficient,
participants from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary education, participants who are individuals with
disabilities, participants who are homeless children and youth,
participants who are foster care youth, or other disconnected
participants.
* * * * *
54. Section 644.5 is revised to read as follows:
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)
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.
* * * * *
56. Section 644.7(b) is amended by:
A. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for Different
population, Financial and economic literacy, Foster care youth,
Homeless children and youth, and Individual with disabilities.
B. Revising the definition of Institution of higher education.
C. Revising the definition of Veteran.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
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 applied for a grant under this chapter to serve; or
(ii) While sharing some of the same needs as another population
that the eligible entity has applied for a grant to serve, has distinct
needs for specialized services.
Financial and economic literacy means knowledge about personal
financial decision-making, including but not limited to knowledge
about--
(i) Personal and family budget planning;
(ii) Understanding credit building principles to meet long-term and
short-term goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit scoring, negative
impacts on credit scores);
(iii) Cost planning for postsecondary education (e.g., spending,
saving, personal budgeting);
(iv) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition
vs. fees, personal costs);
(v) Scholarship, grant, and loan education (e.g., searches,
application processes, and differences between private and government
loans); and
(vi) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA).
Foster care youth means youth who are in foster care or are aging
out of the foster care system.
* * * * *
Homeless children and youth means those persons defined in section
725 of
[[Page 13887]]
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434(a)).
Individual with disabilities means a person who has a diagnosed
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits that person's
ability to participate in educational experiences and opportunities.
Institution of higher education means an educational institution as
defined in sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.
* * * * *
Veteran means a person who--
(i) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States for a period of more than 180 days and was discharged or
released under conditions other than dishonorable;
(ii) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States and was discharged or released because of a service
connected disability;
(iii) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of
the United States and was called to active duty for a period of more
than 30 days; or
(iv) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the
United States who served on active duty in support of a contingency
operation (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10,
United States Code) on or after September 11, 2001.
* * * * *
Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?
57. The heading for subpart B of part 644 is revised to read as set
forth above.
Sec. 644.10 [Redesignated as Sec. 644.11]
58. In subpart B of part 644, Sec. 644.10 is redesignated as Sec.
644.11.
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)
60. Newly redesignated Sec. 644.11 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text, removing the word ``shall'' and
adding, in its place, the word ``must''.
B. Revising paragraph (b).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 644.11 What assurances must an applicant submit?
* * * * *
(b) Individuals who are receiving services from another Educational
Opportunity Center project under this part, a Veterans Upward Bound
project under 34 CFR part 645, a Talent Search project under 34 CFR
part 643, or other programs serving similar populations will not
receive the same services under the proposed project.
* * * * *
61. Section 644.20 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the words ``in delivering
services'' and adding, in their place, the words ``of high quality
service delivery (PE)''.
B. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding the word ``total'' after the
word ``maximum'' the first time it appears.
C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).
D. Removing paragraph (a)(3).
E. In paragraph (b), removing the words ``paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3)'' and adding, in their place, the words ``paragraph (a)''.
F. Revising paragraph (d).
The revision and additions read as follows:
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.
* * * * *
62. Section 644.21 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (b).
B. In paragraph (d)(2), adding the words ``of support'' after the
word ``commitments''; and adding the words ``institutions of higher
education, secondary'' before the word ``schools''.
C. In the OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (g),
removing the numbers ``1840-0065'' and adding, in their place, the
numbers ``1840-NEW3''.
The revision reads as follows:
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) Enrollment of participants who do not have a
secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent in programs
leading to a secondary school diploma or its equivalent.
(2) (4 points) Postsecondary enrollment.
(3) (1 point) Student financial aid assistance.
(4) (1 point) Student college admission assistance.
* * * * *
63. Section 644.22 is revised to read as follows:
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) For the criterion specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section
(Number
[[Page 13888]]
of participants), the Secretary does not award PE points if the
applicant did not serve the approved number of participants.
(d) For purposes of the PE evaluation of grants awarded after
January 1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the
basis of the following outcome criteria:
(1) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant
provided services to the approved number of participants.
(2) (3 points) Secondary school diploma. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its approved objective with regard to participants who do
not have a secondary school diploma or its equivalent who enroll in
programs leading to a secondary school diploma or its equivalent.
(3) (6 points) Postsecondary enrollment. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the secondary school
graduates who enroll in programs of postsecondary education during the
project year by the fall term immediately following the school year.
(4) (1.5 points) Financial aid assistance. Whether the applicant
met or exceeded its objective regarding assistance to individuals in
completing financial aid applications.
(5) (1.5 points) College admission assistance. Whether the
applicant met or exceeded its objective regarding assistance to
individuals in completing applications for college admission.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1840-NEW8.)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-16)
64. Section 644.23 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text of paragraph (b), removing the words
``beginning in fiscal year 1994''.
B. Revising paragraph (b)(1).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 644.23 How does the Secretary set the amount of a grant?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) $200,000; or
* * * * *
65. Section 644.24 is added to subpart C of part 644 to read as
follows:
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 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
[[Page 13889]]
described in paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second review
if the applicant demonstrates that the Department, the Department's
agent, or a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error as
discussed in paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first
review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose
application received a score within the funding band as described in
paragraph (d) of this section has 15 calendar days after receiving
notification that its application was not funded in which to submit a
written request for a second review in accordance with the instructions
and due date provided in the Secretary's written notification.
(6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be
received by the Department or submitted electronically to the
designated e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established
by the Secretary.
(7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the
Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE
points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section,
the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct
number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application
would have resulted in funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds
the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the
second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of
this section.
(8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the
Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error
that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer
reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score
assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the
application during the competition and the program has funds available,
the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer review of applications described
in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring
error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary
convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the
requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
(10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer
review are used in the second ranking of applications. The average
score obtained from the second peer review panel is the final peer
reviewer score for the application and will be used even if the second
review results in a lower score for the application than that obtained
in the initial review.
(11) For applications in the funding band, the Secretary funds
these applications in rank order based on adjusted scores and the
available funds that have been set aside for the second review of
applications.
(d) Process for establishing a funding band. (1) For each
competition, the Secretary establishes a funding band for the second
review of applications.
(2) The Secretary establishes the funding band for each competition
based on the amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second
review of applications.
(3) The funding band is composed of those applications--
(i) With a rank-order score before the second review that is below
the lowest score of applications funded after the first review; and
(ii) That would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the
funds that were set aside for the second review of applications for the
competition.
(e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary's determination of whether
the applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the
Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application are final and not
subject to further appeal or challenge.
(2) An application that scored below the established funding band
for the competition is not eligible for a second review.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1840-NEW3)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)
66. Section 644.30 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``34 CFR part 74,
subpart Q'' and adding, in their place, the words ``34 CFR 74.27,
75.530, and 80.22, as applicable''.
B. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), adding the word
``project'' before the word ``staff''.
C. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the words ``to obtain information
relating to the admission of participants to those institutions''.
D. Revising paragraph (a)(3).
E. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``and test preparation
programs for participants'' after the word ``materials''.
F. Revising paragraph (f).
The revisions read as follows:
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.
* * * * *
(f) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware, computer
software, or other equipment for participant development, project
administration, or project recordkeeping.
* * * * *
67. Section 644.32 is amended by:
A. Removing paragraphs (b) and (d).
B. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).
C. Adding a new paragraph (c).
D. In the OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (b),
removing the numbers ``1840-0065'' and adding, in their place, the
numbers ``1840-NEW8''.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 644.32 What other requirements must a grantee meet?
* * * * *
(c) Project director. (1) A grantee must employ a full-time project
director unless--
(i) The director is also administering one or two additional
programs for disadvantaged students operated by the sponsoring
institution or agency; or
(ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of this requirement.
(2) The grantee must give the project director sufficient authority
to administer the project effectively.
(3) The Secretary waives the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section if the applicant demonstrates that the requirement to
administer no more than three programs will hinder effective
coordination between the Educational Opportunity Centers program and--
(i) One or more Federal TRIO programs (sections 402A through 402F
of the HEA); or
(ii) One or more similar programs funded through other sources.
* * * * *
PART 645--UPWARD BOUND PROGRAM
68. The authority citation for part 645 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-13, unless otherwise
noted.
69. Section 645.2 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a), removing the word ``Institutions'' and adding,
in its place, the words ``An institution''.
B. Revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d).
The revisions read as follows:
[[Page 13890]]
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.
* * * * *
70. Section 645.4 is amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
B. Removing paragraph (a).
C. Redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) as paragraphs (a),
(b), and (c), respectively.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 645.4 What are the grantee requirements for documenting the low-
income and first-generation status of participants?
* * * * *
71. 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.
* * * * *
72. Section 645.6(b) is amended by:
A. Revising the definition of Institution of higher education.
B. Revising the definition of Veteran.
C. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for Different
population, Financial and economic literacy, Foster care youth,
Homeless children and youth, Individual who has a high risk for
academic failure, Individual with disabilities, Regular secondary
school diploma, Rigorous secondary school program of study, and Veteran
who has a high risk for academic failure.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
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, including but 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 education (e.g., spending,
saving, personal budgeting);
(4) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition
vs. fees, personal costs);
(5) Scholarship, grant, and loan education (e.g., searches,
application processes, and differences between private and government
loans); and
(6) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA).
Foster care youth means youth who are in foster care or are aging
out of the foster care system.
* * * * *
Homeless children and youth means persons defined in section 725 of
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434(a)).
Individual who has a high risk for academic failure (regular Upward
Bound participant) means an individual who--
(1) Has not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments
in reading or language arts;
(2) Has not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments
in math;
(3) Has not completed pre-algebra, algebra, or geometry; or
(4) Has a grade point average of 2.5 or less (on a 4.0 scale) for
the most recent school year for which grade point averages are
available.
Individual with disabilities means a person who has a diagnosed
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits that person's
ability to participate in educational experiences and opportunities.
Institution of higher education means an educational institution as
defined in sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.
* * * * *
Regular secondary school diploma means a diploma attained by
individuals who meet or exceed the coursework and performance standards
for high school completion established by the individual's State.
Rigorous secondary school program of study means a program of study
that is--
(1) Established by a State educational agency (SEA) or local
educational agency (LEA) and recognized as a rigorous secondary school
program of study by the Secretary through the process described in 34
CFR 691.16(a) through (c) for the ACG Program;
(2) An advanced or honors secondary school program established by
States and in existence for the 2004-2005 school year or later school
years;
(3) Any secondary school program in which a student successfully
completes at a minimum the following courses:
(i) Four years of English.
(ii) Three years of mathematics, including algebra I and a higher-
level class such as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and
statistics.
(iii) Three years of science, including one year each of at least
two of the following courses: biology, chemistry, and physics.
(iv) Three years of social studies.
(v) One year of a language other than English;
(4) A secondary school program identified by a State-level
partnership that is recognized by the State Scholars Initiative of the
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), Boulder,
Colorado;
(5) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at
least two courses from an International Baccalaureate Diploma Program
sponsored by the International Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland, and receives a score of a ``4'' or higher on the
examinations for at least two of those courses; or
(6) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at
least two Advanced Placement courses and receives a score of ``3'' or
higher on the College Board's Advanced Placement Program Exams for at
least two of those courses.
* * * * *
Veteran means a person who--
(1) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States for a period of more than 180 days and was discharged or
released under conditions other than dishonorable;
(2) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States and was discharged or released because of a service
connected disability;
(3) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the
United States and was called to active duty for a period of more than
30 days; or
(4) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the
United States who served on active duty in support of a contingency
operation (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10,
United States Code) on or after September 11, 2001.
[[Page 13891]]
Veteran who has a high risk for academic failure means a veteran
who--
(1) Has been out of high school or dropped out of a program of
postsecondary education for five or more years;
(2) Has scored on standardized tests below the level that
demonstrates a likelihood of success in a program of postsecondary
education; or
(3) Meets the definition of an individual with disabilities as
defined in Sec. 645.6(b).
* * * * *
73. 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 literacy and economic literacy of students or the students'
parents, including financial planning for postsecondary education.
(b) Any project that has received funds under this part for at
least two years must include as part of its core curriculum in the next
and succeeding years, instruction in--
(1) Mathematics through pre-calculus;
(2) Laboratory science;
(3) Foreign language;
(4) Composition; and
(5) Literature.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13)
Sec. 645.12, 645.13, and 645.14 [Redesignated as Sec. 645.13,
645.14, and 645.15]
74. Sections 645.12, 645.13, and 645.14 of subpart B of part 645
are redesignated as Sec. Sec. 645.13, 645.14, and 645.15 of subpart B
of part 645, respectively.
75. 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; and
(f) Programs and activities as described in Sec. 645.11 or
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section that are specially
designed for participants who are limited English proficient,
participants from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary education, participants who are individuals with
disabilities, participants who are homeless children and youths,
participants in or who are aging out of foster care, or other
disconnected participants.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13)
76. Newly redesignated Sec. 645.15 is amended by--
A. 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'';
B. In paragraph (b), removing the word ``and'';
C. In paragraph (c), removing the punctuation ``.'' and adding, in
its place, the word ``; and''; and
D. Adding a new paragraph (d).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 645.15 What additional services do Veterans Upward Bound
projects provide?
* * * * *
(d) Provide special services, including mathematics and science
preparation, to enable veterans to make the transition to postsecondary
education.
* * * * *
77. 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)
78. 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) Individuals who are receiving services from Gaining Early
Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) project
under 34 CFR part 694, another regular Upward Bound or Upward Bound
Math and Science Centers project under this part, a Talent Search
project under 34 CFR part 643, an Educational Opportunity Centers
project under 34 CFR part 644, or other programs serving similar
populations will not receive the same services under the proposed
project.
(b) An applicant for an Upward Bound Math and Science Centers award
must assure the Secretary that--
(1) Not less than two-thirds of the project's participants will be
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;
[[Page 13892]]
(3) No student will be denied participation in a project because
the student would enter the project after the 9th grade; and
(4) Individuals who are receiving services from GEAR UP under 34
CFR part 694, a regular Upward Bound or another Upward Bound Math-
Science Centers project under this part, a Talent Search project under
34 CFR part 643, an Educational Opportunity Centers project under 34
CFR part 644, or other programs serving similar populations will not
receive the same services under the proposed project.
(c) An applicant for a Veterans Upward Bound award must assure the
Secretary that--
(1) Not less than two-thirds of the project's participants will be
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) Individuals who are receiving services from another Veterans
Upward Bound project under this part, a Talent Search project under 34
CFR part 643, an Educational Opportunity Centers project under 34 CFR
part 644, or other programs serving similar populations will not
receive the same services under the proposed project.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13)
79. Section 645.30 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the words ``in delivering
services'' and adding, in their place, the words ``of high quality
service delivery (PE)''.
B. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding the word ``total'' after the
word ``maximum'' the first time it appears.
C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).
D. Revising paragraph (d).
The additions and revision read as follows:
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.
* * * * *
80. Section 645.31 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (b).
B. In paragraph (d)(2), adding the word ``secondary'' after the
word ``from''; and adding the words ``institutions of higher
education,'' after the word ``schools,''.
The revision reads as follows:
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 graduation (with regular
secondary school diploma);
(iv) (1 point) Completion of rigorous secondary school program of
study;
(v) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment; and
(vi) (1 point) Postsecondary completion.
(2) For Veterans Upward Bound--
(i) (2 points) Academic performance (standardized test scores);
(ii) (3 points) Education program retention and completion;
(iii) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment; and
(iv) (1 point) Postsecondary completion.
* * * * *
81. Section 645.32 is revised to read as follows:
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) For the criteria specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and
(e)(2)(i) of this section (Number of participants), the Secretary does
not award PE points if the applicant did not serve the approved number
of participants.
(d) The Secretary uses the approved number of participants, or the
actual number of participants served in a given year if greater than
the approved number of participants, as the denominator for calculating
whether the applicant has met its approved objectives related to the
following PE criteria:
(1) Regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science Centers
PE criteria in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section (Academic
performance) and paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section (Secondary
school retention and graduation).
(2) Veterans Upward Bound PE criteria in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of
this section (Academic improvement on standardized test) and paragraph
(e)(2)(iii) of this section (Education program retention and
completion).
(e) For purposes of the PE evaluation of grants awarded after
January 1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the
basis of the following outcome criteria:
(1) Regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science Centers.
(i) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant
provided services to the approved number of participants.
(ii) Academic Performance. (A) (1.5 points) Whether the applicant
met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the percentage of
project participants that received a 2.5 grade point average or better
on a 4.0 scale or its equivalent at the end of each school year.
(B) (1.5 points) Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved
objective
[[Page 13893]]
with regard to the percentage of project participants that performed at
the proficient level on State assessments in reading/language arts and
math.
(iii) (3 points) Secondary school retention and graduation. Whether
the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the
percentage of participants who returned the next school year or
graduated from secondary school with a regular secondary school
diploma.
(iv) (1.5 points) Rigorous secondary school program of study.
Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with
regard to the percentage of current and prior participants with an
expected high school graduation date in the school year who were
enrolled in and completed a rigorous secondary school program of study.
(v) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the percentage of
current and prior participants with an expected high school graduation
date in the school year who enrolled in a program of postsecondary
education by the fall term immediately following the school year.
(vi) (1.5 points) Postsecondary completion. Whether the applicant
met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the percentage of
postsecondary enrollees who attained a postsecondary degree within the
number of years specified in the approved objective.
(2) Veterans Upward Bound.
(i) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant
provided services to the approved number of participants.
(ii) (3 points) Academic improvement on standardized test. Whether
the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the
percentage of participants who improved their academic performance
during the project year as measured by a standardized test taken by
participants before and after receiving services from the project.
(iii) (3 points) Education program retention and completion.
Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with
regard to the percentage of participants who remain enrolled in or
completed their Veterans Upward Bound educational program during the
project year.
(iv) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the percentage of
participants who enrolled in an institution of higher education during
the project year or by the fall term immediately following the project
year.
(v) (3 points) Postsecondary completion. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the percentage of
postsecondary enrollees who attained a postsecondary degree within the
number of years specified in the approved objective.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1840-NEW9)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-13)
Sec. 645.33 [Amended]
82. Section 645.33 is amended by, in paragraph (b)(1), removing the
amount ``$190,000'' and adding, in its place, the amount ``$200,000''.
83. Section 645.34 is revised to read as follows:
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)
84. 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--
[[Page 13894]]
(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 discussed in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first
review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose
application received a score within the funding band as described in
paragraph (d) of this section has 15 calendar days after receiving
notification that its application was not funded in which to submit a
written request for a second review in accordance with the instructions
and due date provided in the Secretary's written notification.
(6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be
received by the Department or submitted electronically to the
designated e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established
by the Secretary.
(7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the
Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE
points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section,
the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct
number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application
would have resulted in funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds
the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the
second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of
this section.
(8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the
Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error
that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer
reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score
assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the
application during the competition and the program has funds available,
the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer review of applications described
in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring
error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary
convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the
requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
(10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer
review are used in the second ranking 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)
85. Section 645.40 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``34 CFR part 74,
subpart Q'' and adding, in their place, the words ``34 CFR 74.27,
75.530, and 80.22, as applicable''.
B. Revising paragraph (n).
C. Redesignating paragraph (o) as paragraph (p).
D. Adding new paragraph (o).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 645.40 What are allowable costs?
* * * * *
(n) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware, software, and
other equipment and supplies that support the delivery of services to
participants, including technology used by participants in a rigorous
secondary school program of study.
(o) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer equipment and software
needed for project administration and recordkeeping.
* * * * *
86. Section 645.42 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to
read as follows:
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.
* * * * *
87. Section 645.43 is amended by:
A. Removing paragraphs (a) and (b).
B. Adding a new paragraph (a).
C. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).
D. Adding an OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph
(b).
[[Page 13895]]
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 645.43 What other requirements must a grantee meet?
(a) Project director. (1) A grantee must employ a full-time project
director unless--
(i) The director is also administering one or two additional
programs for disadvantaged students operated by the sponsoring
institution or agency; or
(ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of this requirement.
(2) The grantee must give the project director sufficient authority
to administer the project effectively.
(3) The Secretary waives the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section if the applicant demonstrates that the requirement to
administer no more than three programs will hinder effective
coordination between the Regular Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math and
Science or Veterans Upward Bound program and--
(i) One or more Federal TRIO programs (sections 402A through 402F
of the HEA); or
(ii) One or more similar programs funded through other sources.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1840-NEW9.)
* * * * *
PART 646--STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES
88. The authority citation for part 646 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14, unless otherwise
noted.
89. Section 646.1 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a), adding the word ``college'' before the word
``retention''.
B. Revising paragraph (c).
C. Adding new paragraph (d).
The revision and addition read as follows:
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 literacy 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.
* * * * *
90. 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 literacy and economic literacy of students, including
financial planning for postsecondary education.
(5) Activities designed to assist students participating in the
project in applying for admission to, and obtaining financial
assistance for enrollment in, graduate and professional programs.
(6) Activities designed to assist students enrolled in two-year
institutions of higher education in applying for admission to, and
obtaining financial assistance for enrollment in, a four-year program
of postsecondary education.
(b) A Student Support Services project may provide the following
services:
(1) Individualized counseling for personal, career, and academic
matters provided by assigned counselors.
(2) Information, activities, and instruction designed to acquaint
students participating in the project with the range of career options
available to the students.
(3) Exposure to cultural events and academic programs not usually
available to disadvantaged students.
(4) Mentoring programs involving faculty or upper class students,
or a combination thereof.
(5) Securing temporary housing during breaks in the academic year
for--
(i) Students who are homeless children and youths or were formerly
homeless children and youths; and
(ii) Foster care youths.
(6) Programs and activities as described in paragraph (a) of this
section or paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section that are
specially designed for students who are limited English proficient,
students from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in
postsecondary education, students who are individuals with
disabilities, students who are homeless children and youths, students
who are foster care youth, or other disconnected students.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
91. Section 646.5 is revised to read as follows:
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)
92. 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. 75.215-75.221),
77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
93. Section 646.7 is amended by:
A. Removing paragraph (a).
B. Redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (a) and (b),
respectively.
C. In newly redesignated paragraph (b), revising the definition of
Different campus; removing the definition of Different population of
participants; revising the definition of Individual with disabilities;
and adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for Different
population, Financial and economic literacy, First generation college
student, Foster care youth, Homeless children and youth, Institution of
higher education, and Low-income individual.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
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--
[[Page 13896]]
(1) Is separate and distinct from any other population that the
entity has applied for a grant to serve; or
(2) While sharing some of the same needs as another population that
the eligible entity has applied for a grant to serve, has distinct
needs for specialized services.
Financial and economic literacy means knowledge about personal
financial decision-making, including but not limited to knowledge
about--
(1) Personal and family budget planning;
(2) Understanding credit building principles to meet long-term and
short-term goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit scoring, negative
impacts on credit scores);
(3) Cost planning for secondary education (e.g., spending, saving,
personal budgeting);
(4) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition
vs. fees, personal costs);
(5) Scholarship, grant and loan education (e.g., searches,
application processes, differences between private and government
loans); and
(6) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA).
First generation college student means--
(1) A student neither of whose natural or adoptive parents received
a baccalaureate degree; or
(2) A student who, prior to the age of 18, regularly resided with
and received support from only one parent and whose supporting parent
did not receive a baccalaureate degree.
(3) An individual who, prior to the age of 18, did not regularly
reside with or receive support from a natural or an adoptive parent.
Foster care youth means youth who are in foster care or are aging
out of the foster care system.
Homeless children and youth means persons defined in section 725 of
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 1143a).
Individual with disabilities means a person who has a diagnosed
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits that person's
ability to participate in educational experiences and opportunities.
Institution of higher education means an educational institution as
defined in sections 101 and 102 of the Act.
* * * * *
Low-income individual means an individual whose family's taxable
income did not exceed 150 percent of the poverty level amount in the
calendar year preceding the year in which the individual initially
participated in the project. The poverty level amount is determined by
using criteria of poverty established by the Bureau of the Census of
the U.S. Department of Commerce.
* * * * *
94. Subpart B of part 646 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?
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.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1840-1840-NEW5)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
95. Section 646.20 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the words ``in delivering
services'' and adding, in their place, the words ``of high quality
service delivery (PE)''.
B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii).
C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).
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.
* * * * *
96. Section 646.21 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (b).
B. Revising the OMB control number at the end of the section.
The revision reads as follows:
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 13897]]
97. 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) For the criterion specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section
(Number of participants), the Secretary does not award PE points if the
applicant did not serve the approved number of participants.
(d) The Secretary uses the approved number of participants, or the
actual number of participants served in a given year if greater than
the approved number of participants, as the denominator for calculating
whether the applicant has met its approved objectives related to
paragraph (e)(2) of this section (Postsecondary retention) and
paragraph (e)(3) of this section (Good academic standing).
(e) For purposes of the PE evaluation of grants awarded after
January 1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the
basis of the following outcome criteria:
(1) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant
provided services to the approved number of participants.
(2) (4 points) Postsecondary retention. Whether the applicant met
or exceeded its objective regarding the percentage of all participants
served who continue to be enrolled in a program of postsecondary
education from one academic year to the beginning of the next academic
year or who complete a program of postsecondary education at the
grantee institution during the academic year or transfer from a two-
year institution to a four-year institution during the academic year.
(3) (4 points) Good academic standing. Whether the applicant met or
exceeded its objective regarding the percentage of all participants
served who are in good academic standing at the grantee institution.
(4) (4 points) Degree completion (for an applicant institution of
higher education offering primarily a baccalaureate or higher degree).
Whether the applicant met or exceeded its objective regarding the
percentage of participants receiving a baccalaureate degree at the
grantee institution within the specified number of years.
(5) Degree completion and transfer (for an applicant institution of
higher education offering primarily an associate degree). Whether the
applicant met or exceeded its objectives regarding the percentage of
participants who--
(i) (2 points) Complete a degree or certificate within the number
of years specified in the approved objective; and
(ii) (2 points) Transfer within the number of years specified in
the approved objective to institutions of higher education that offer
baccalaureate degrees.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1840-NEW10)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11; 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.23 [Amended]
98. Section 646.23(b)(1) is amended by removing the amount
``$170,000'' and adding, in its place, the amount ``$200,000''.
99. A new 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 wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.
(3)(i) A scoring error relates only to the peer review process and
includes
[[Page 13898]]
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 discussed in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first
review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose
application received a score within the funding band as described in
paragraph (d) of this section has 15 calendar days after receiving
notification that its application was not funded in which to submit a
written request for a second review in accordance with the instructions
and due date provided in the Secretary's written notification.
(6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be
received by the Department or submitted electronically to the
designated e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established
by the Secretary.
(7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the
Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE
points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section,
the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct
number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application
would have resulted in funding of the application during the
competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds
the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the
second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of
this section.
(8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the
Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error
that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer
reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score
assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the
application during the competition and the program has funds available,
the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of
applications based on the second peer review of applications described
in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring
error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary
convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the
requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
(10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer
review are used in the second ranking 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)
100. Section 646.30 is amended by:
A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``34 CFR part 74,
subpart Q'' and adding, in their place, the words ``34 CFR 74.27,
75.530, and 80.22, as applicable''.
B. Revising paragraph (f).
C. Adding new paragraphs (i) and (j).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 646.30 What are allowable costs?
* * * * *
(f) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware, computer
software, or other equipment for participant development, project
administration, or project recordkeeping.
* * * * *
(i) Grant Aid to eligible students who--
(1) Are in their first two years of postsecondary education and who
are receiving Federal Pell Grants under subpart 1 of part A of title IV
of the Act; or
(2) Have completed their first two years of postsecondary education
and who are receiving Federal Pell Grants under subpart 1 of part A of
title IV of the Act if the institution demonstrates to the satisfaction
of the Secretary that--
(i) These students are at high risk of dropping out; and
(ii) It will first meet the needs of all its eligible first- and
second-year
[[Page 13899]]
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]
101. 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]
102. Section 646.32 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(2), removing the words ``Higher Education''.
B. Revising paragraph (c).
C. In the OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (d),
removing the numbers ``1840-0017'' and adding, in its place, the
numbers ``1840-NEW5''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 646.32 What other requirements must a grantee meet?
* * * * *
(c) Project director. (1) A grantee must employ a full-time project
director unless--
(i) The director is also administering one or two additional
programs for disadvantaged students operated by the sponsoring
institution or agency; or
(ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of this requirement.
(2) The grantee must give the project director sufficient authority
to administer the project effectively.
(3) The Secretary waives the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section if the applicant demonstrates that the requirement to
administer no more than three programs will hinder effective
coordination between the Student Support Services program and--
(i) One or more Federal TRIO programs (sections 402A through 402F
of the HEA); or
(ii) One or more similar programs funded through other sources.
* * * * *
103. Section 646.33 is added to subpart D of part 646 to read as
follows:
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
104. The authority citation for part 647 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-15, unless otherwise
noted.
105. Section 647.4 is revised to read as follows:
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 literacy and economic literacy of students, including
financial planning for postsecondary education.
(2) Mentoring programs involving faculty members at institutions of
higher education, students, or a combination of faculty members and
students.
(3) Exposure to cultural events and academic programs not usually
available to disadvantaged students.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-15)
106. 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)
107. 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. 75.215-75.221),
77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
108. Section 647.7(b) is amended by:
A. Removing the definition of Summer internship.
B. In the definition of Graduate center, revising the introductory
text.
C. Revising the definition of Groups underrepresented in graduate
education.
D. Revising the definition of Institution of higher education.
E. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for Different
campus, Different population, Financial and economic literacy, and
Research or scholarly activity.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
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, including but 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 education (e.g., spending,
saving, personal budgeting);
[[Page 13900]]
(4) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition
vs. fees, personal costs);
(5) Scholarship, grant and loan education (e.g., searches,
application processes, and differences between private and government
loans); and
(6) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA).
* * * * *
Graduate center means an institution of higher education as defined
in sections 101 and 102 of the HEA; and that--
* * * * *
Groups underrepresented in graduate education. The following ethnic
and racial groups are considered underrepresented in graduate
education: Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, American Indian, Alaskan
Native (as defined in section 7306 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)), Native Hawaiians (as defined
in section 7207 of the ESEA), and Native American Pacific Islanders (as
defined in section 320 of the HEA).
Institution of higher education means an educational institution as
defined in sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.
* * * * *
Research or scholarly activity means an educational activity that
is more rigorous than is typically available to undergraduates in a
classroom setting, that is definitive in its start and end dates,
contains appropriate benchmarks for completion of various components,
and is conducted under the guidance of an appropriate faculty member
with experience in the relevant discipline.
* * * * *
Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?
109. Subpart B of part 647 is amended by revising the subpart
heading to read as set forth above.
Sec. 647.10 [Redesignated as Sec. 647.11]
109a. Redesignate Sec. 647.10 as Sec. 647.11.
110. 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)
111. Section 647.20 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), adding the words ``of high quality
service delivery (PE)'' after the words ``prior experience''.
B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii).
C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iv), (a)(2)(v), and (a)(2)(vi).
D. Revising paragraph (d).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
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.
* * * * *
112. Section 647.21 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (b).
B. Adding an OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph
(d).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 647.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use?
* * * * *
(b) Objectives (9 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of
the applicant's objectives and proposed targets (percentages) in the
following areas on the basis of the extent to which they are both
ambitious, as related to the need data provided under paragraph (a) of
this section, and attainable, given the project's plan of operation,
budget, and other resources:
(1) (2 points) Research.
(2) (3 points) Enrollment in a graduate program.
(3) (2 points) Continued enrollment in graduate study.
(4) (2 points) Doctoral degree attainment.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1840-NEW6)
* * * * *
113. Section 647.22 is revised to read as follows:
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) For the criteria specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section
(Number of participants), the Secretary does not award any PE points if
the applicant did not serve the approved number of participants.
(d) The Secretary uses the approved number of participants, or the
actual number of participants served in a given year if greater than
the approved number of participants, as the denominator for calculating
whether the applicant has met its approved objective related to
paragraph (e)(2) of this section (Research and scholarly activities).
(e) For purposes of the PE evaluation of grants awarded after
January 1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the
basis of the following outcome criteria:
(1) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant
provided services to the approved number of participants.
(2) (3 points) Research and scholarly activities. Whether the
applicant met or exceeded its objective for providing
[[Page 13901]]
participants with appropriate research and scholarly activities each
academic year.
(3) (3 points) Graduate school enrollment. Whether the applicant
met or exceeded its objective with regard to the acceptance and
enrollment in graduate programs of participants who complete the
baccalaureate program during the academic year.
(4) (4 points) Continued enrollment in graduate school. Whether the
applicant met or exceeded its objective with regard to the continued
enrollment in graduate school of prior participants.
(5) (2 points) Doctoral degree attainment. Whether the applicant
met or exceeded its objective with regard to the attainment of doctoral
level degrees of prior participants in the specified number of years.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1840-NEW11.)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-15)
Sec. 647.23 [Amended]
114. Section 647.23 is amended by:
A. In paragraph (b), introductory text, removing the words
``beginning in fiscal year 1995''.
B. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the amount ``$190,000'' and
adding, in its place, the amount ``$200,000''.
115. Section 647.24 is added to subpart C of part 647 to read as
follows:
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 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 discussed in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first
review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose
application received a score within the funding band as described in
paragraph (d) of this section has 15 calendar days after receiving
notification that its application was not funded in which to submit a
written request for a second review in accordance with the instructions
and due date provided in the Secretary's written notification.
[[Page 13902]]
(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)
116. Section 647.30 amended by:
A. In paragraph (b), removing the amount ``$2,400'' and, adding, in
its place, the amount ``$2,800''.
B. Revising paragraph (d).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 647.30 What are allowable costs?
* * * * *
(d) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware, computer
software, or other equipment for participant development, project
administration, or project recordkeeping.
117. Section 647.32 is amended by adding an OMB control number
parenthetical following paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 647.32 What other requirements must a grantee meet?
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1840-NEW11.)
* * * * *
PART 694--GAINING EARLY AWARENESS AND READINESS FOR UNDERGRADUATE
PROGRAMS (GEAR UP)
118. The authority citation for part 694 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21 to 1070a-28.
119. Section 694.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a),
introductory text to read as follows:
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--
* * * * *
120. 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.
* * * * *
121. 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)
122. 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:
[[Page 13903]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
123. 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 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)
124. 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)
125. 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
[[Page 13904]]
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)
126. 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--
(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)
127. New Sec. 694.14 is added 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
[[Page 13905]]
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)
128. 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)
129. Section 694.16 is added to read as follows:
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))
130. 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)
131. 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))
132. 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)
[[Page 13906]]
approach to identify participating students may, consistent with its
approved application and at any time during the project period, provide
services to students during their first year of attendance at an
institution of higher education, provided that the grantee continues to
provide all required services throughout the Federal budget period to
GEAR UP students still enrolled in a local educational agency.
(c) If a grantee is awarded a seven year grant, consistent with the
grantee's approved application, during the seventh year of the grant
the grantee--
(1) Must provide services to students in their first year of
attendance at an institution of higher education; and
(2) May choose to provide services to high school students who have
yet to graduate.
(d) Grantees that continue to provide services under this part to
students through their first year of attendance at an institution of
higher education must, to the extent practicable, coordinate with other
campus programs, including academic support services to enhance, not
duplicate service.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21(b)(2))
133. New 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))
134. 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 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))
135. 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.
[[Page 13907]]
(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)
136. 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;
(h) Assistance with financial planning;
(i) Career counseling and advising services; or
(j) Advising students about transferring to other schools.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-24)
137. New 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. 2010-4869 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P