[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66225-66232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-17709]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter VI

[ED-2024-OPE-0069]


Postsecondary Student Success Grant

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criterion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) issues priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and a selection criterion for use in the 
Postsecondary Student Success Grant (PSSG) program. The Department may 
use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criterion for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024 and later 
years. We intend for these priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criterion to support projects that equitably improve 
postsecondary student outcomes, including retention, upward transfer, 
and completions of value, by leveraging data and implementing, scaling, 
and rigorously evaluating evidence-based activities to support data-
driven decisions and actions that lead to credentials that support 
economic success and further education.

DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criterion are effective September 16, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nemeka Mason-Clercin, U.S. Department 
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 5th floor, Washington, DC 20202-
4260. Telephone: (202) 987-1340. Nalini Lamba-Nieves, U.S. Department 
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, room 5C127, Washington, DC 20202-
4260. Telephone: (202) 453-7953. Email: [email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Program: The purpose of the PSSG 
program is to equitably improve postsecondary student outcomes, 
including retention, upward transfer, and completions of value, by 
leveraging data and implementing, scaling, and rigorously evaluating 
evidence-based activities to support data-driven decisions and actions 
that lead to credentials that support economic success and further 
education.
    Assistance Listing Number: 84.116M.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and 
definitions in the Federal Register on June 7, 2024 (89 FR 48517) 
(NPP). That document contained background information and the 
Department's reasons for proposing the particular priorities, 
requirements, and definitions. There are several differences between 
the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions and these final 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion. They 
include changing Proposed Priority 4 on using data for continuous 
improvement to a selection criterion and adding examples of evaluation 
strategies; revising the scaling requirements for the mid-phase and 
expansion priorities; revising the definition of ``completions of 
value''; and revising the examples of allowable uses of funds to 
include using data to administer the program effectively at the 
institution and/or State or system levels, capacity building, rigorous 
evaluations, technology-assisted supports, tutoring and supplemental 
instruction, peer mentoring, and support for students with 
disabilities.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 23 
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, 
and definitions. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor 
changes, or suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to 
make under applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not 
address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to 
the proposed priorities, requirements, or definitions.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, and definitions since 
publication of the NPP follows.

General Comments

    Comments: Several commenters praised the Department for conducting 
rulemaking for the PSSG program and for the proposed priorities, 
requirements, and definitions. For example, several commenters 
supported the Department's use of evidence standards within Proposed 
Priorities 1, 2, and 3, and the use of completions of value. Other 
commenters supported the Department's proposed uses of funds.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support of the grant program and the 
priorities, requirements, and definitions.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters proposed recommendations for which 
priorities and selection criteria from the NPP should be utilized in a 
competition, how the selection criteria should be evaluated, what 
information applicants should be provided, and other components of the 
application process. Others suggested that we apply the requirements in 
the recently updated Uniform Grants Guidance.
    Discussion: The components of an individual application, including 
which specific priorities to use, and the guidelines for the 
application process are laid out in the notice inviting applications 
that is developed for each competition and do not require additional 
rulemaking for this grant program. The requirements from the new 
Uniform Grants Guidance can be utilized without inclusion in the NFP 
since they have already gone through rulemaking.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter criticized the priorities, stating that it 
is discriminatory to focus on ``underserved students'' and that the 
program lacks accountability measures to prevent misuse of the research 
project support services for certain students and suggested that there 
should be an opt-out provision for students.
    Discussion: The PSSG program is designed to enable institutions to 
implement evidence-based projects to support student success for a 
targeted group of students who are underrepresented among college 
completers. However, nothing in these priorities precludes applicants 
from proposing to also serve students who are not included in the 
definition of ``underserved students'' yet need additional support to 
complete college. The program holds grantees accountable through, among 
other things, monitoring of the grants, which includes requiring 
grantees to report annually on program-specific performance measures. 
Regarding the opt-out provisions,

[[Page 66226]]

institutions manage their own opt-in/opt-out policies with regard to 
student participation in their grant-funded activities.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Two commenters questioned the effectiveness of taking a 
statistics-focused approach to improving student outcomes.
    Discussion: Research demonstrates that data-informed decision-
making is an important component of a people-driven continuous 
improvement process to improve student outcomes, which is the approach 
promoted in this grant program.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, for example, Association of Governing Boards of 
Universities and Colleges (2019). Innovation in Higher Education: A 
Case Study of Georgia State University. Washington, DC. Retrieved 
from: https://agb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/case_study_innovation_georgia.pdf; and Gagliardi, J., Parnell, A., 
and Carpenter-Hubin, J. (Eds). (2018). The Analytics Revolution in 
Higher Education: Big Data, Organizational Learning, and Student 
Success. Routledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter expressed concern about the privacy of 
student data.
    Discussion: The Department does not collect individual-level data 
for the PSSG program. Institutions that use student-level data to 
support individuals through to completion must comply with the Family 
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR 
part 99).
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested that the priorities and 
requirements be used to collect enrollment and persistence data on 
students with disabilities.
    Discussion: Under the final selection criterion under which 
applicants will identify or describe how they will develop performance 
and outcome measures, applicants will also describe how they will 
disaggregate data by student subgroups, which may include students with 
disabilities if relevant to the project. In addition, under Priorities 
1, 2, and 3, projects must be focused on improving outcomes for 
underserved students, which may include students with disabilities. 
Nothing in the proposed requirement regarding allowable use of funds 
precluded support for students with disabilities, but we are explicitly 
adding it to the list of examples to underscore the importance of 
supporting this population.
    Changes: We have added support for students with disabilities as an 
explicit allowable student success strategy in the allowable uses of 
funds requirement.

Priorities

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department consider 
whether the programs in which students are being retained or to which 
they are transferring meet the value threshold in the definition of 
``completions of value.''
    Discussion: The Department does not have the capacity to apply the 
value measure at the program level, and PSSG currently is not targeted 
at the program level. However, we recognize the importance of not 
limiting this measure to completion. Accordingly, we are revising the 
definition of ``completions of value'' to also address retention and 
transfer outcomes. In responding to Priorities 1, 2, and 3, applicants 
will be expected to demonstrate how their proposed projects will 
improve postsecondary success for underserved students by increasing 
completions of value that lead to further education through upward 
transfer or graduate education and/or lead to economic mobility.
    Changes: We added to the definition of ``completions of value'' 
that students must be retained at and/or transfer to institutions 
conferring completions of value.
    Comments: One commenter suggested we retain the focus of the PSSG 
program on degree completion, rather than establish a new definition of 
``completions of value,'' because they claimed it would be burdensome 
to the grant application and administration processes for the applicant 
to demonstrate post-completion return on investment due to limited 
available data.
    Discussion: The Department intends to use existing College 
Scorecard data and generate additional College Scorecard measures 
related to completions of value that institutions can use as part of 
their reporting on this metric for PSSG, since we recognize that it is 
difficult for some institutions to obtain earnings data.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Three commenters suggested that the Department adopt a 
selection criterion regarding data collection and continuous 
improvement processes at the institution after the grant period, rather 
than address the topic through a priority. Another commenter suggested 
we add examples of evaluation strategies to this priority that include 
rapid-cycle experimentation, pilots, feasibility studies, and 
implementation research.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters about the importance of 
this component to this grant program and believe that if we address it 
through a selection criterion instead of a priority, it will 
incentivize more applicants to develop robust data collection and 
continuous improvement strategies, since it will be factored into the 
scores of all applicants. While all of the evaluation strategies the 
commenter mentions are already allowable, we have added them as 
examples to make it clear for future applicants.
    Changes: We have changed Proposed Priority 4 to a selection 
criterion and added examples of evaluation strategies.
    Comments: One commenter suggested that we eliminate Proposed 
Priority 5, stating that the grant awards should not be selected based 
on specific strategies to improve retention and completion, and another 
commenter requested that we keep it. One commenter suggested we include 
it as an allowable use of funds instead of a priority. Finally, one 
commenter praised the Department for including this priority but 
suggested that we add experiential learning in addition to credentials 
of value.
    Discussion: We believe that college-to-career pathways and supports 
are a critical component of student success, and therefore are 
retaining this as a priority. We agree with the commenter about the 
important role experiential learning can play, especially for adult 
learners with some college but no credential, and added language to the 
priority to reflect this.
    Changes: We have added language to Proposed Priority 5 to indicate 
that participating in experiential learning can be part of a college-
to-career pathway.
    Comment: In response to our request in the NPP for feedback on the 
proposed scale requirements for the mid-phase and expansion tiers of 
evidence, we received numerous comments with recommendations. A common 
theme among the commenters was to suggest that we eliminate the use of 
specific numbers of students required in order to demonstrate scale or, 
if maintained, lower the number to 350 from EDGAR's current definitions 
of ``strong evidence'' and ``moderate evidence.'' In lieu of using 
population metrics, commenters had several suggestions, including 
utilizing the rigor of evaluations, the caliber of the research, the 
reasonableness of the costs, the strategy to effectively scale, and the 
impacts on college completion--specifically to advance equity or 
participant outcomes. One commenter suggested that we use, instead of 
the proposed scale requirements for the mid-phase and expansion tiers 
of evidence, a three-part requirement for each grant type that would 
include requiring all mid-phase

[[Page 66227]]

and expansion grant applicants to demonstrate they will be able to 
conduct a well-powered study with the number of students they propose 
to serve; meet the minimum standard for studies that meet the 
definition of ``moderate evidence'' or ``strong evidence,'' which is 
350 students; and implement the intervention at multiple sites with 
mid-phase grants implemented at multiple campuses and expansion grants 
implemented either at multiple institutions or multiple campuses, where 
the campuses serve different types of underserved students or in 
different locales.
    Discussion: We agree with the comments on aligning the scale and 
multisite requirements with the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 
guidelines defined in EDGAR given one of the stated goals of the 
program is to generate quality evidence about what works to improve 
postsecondary student success. Because the WWC guidelines for 
``moderate evidence'' and ``strong evidence'' do not differ in the 
required number of sites or scale, we changed the priority language so 
that the requirements for mid-phase and expansion projects do not 
include a specific number of students, and we do not differentiate in 
the number of sites or students required for moderate and strong 
evidence. We also agree with the comments on ensuring the projects 
demonstrate positive impact on underserved populations to align with 
the goal of the program to equitably improve outcomes.
    Changes: For mid-phase projects, we have changed the priority to 
provide that projects must be implemented at multiple institutions of 
higher education or multiple campuses of the same institution and be 
intentionally designed to detect the impact of the project, if any, on 
all students served by the project as well as on at least one 
population of underserved students (as defined in this document) or 
between institutions of different locales. For expansion projects, we 
have changed the priority to provide that projects must be implemented 
at multiple institutions of higher education and be intentionally 
designed to detect the impact of the project, if any, on all students 
served by the project as well as on at least one population of 
underserved students (as defined in this notice) or between 
institutions of different locales.
    Comments: One commenter suggested adding a priority for projects at 
lower-resourced institutions serving a significant population of high-
need students and with low completion rates or large completion 
disparities.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that projects should be at 
institutions that are lower-resourced and have a significant population 
of underserved students and completion disparities. That is why the 
eligibility is targeted to title III and V institutions, which are 
generally under-resourced institutions with a disproportionate 
enrollment of students from groups who are underrepresented among 
college completers, such as students from low-income backgrounds.
    Changes: None.

Requirements

    Comments: Numerous commenters suggested we add to the list of 
allowable uses of funds. Recommendations included adding capacity-
building, the costs of rigorous evaluation, data to administer the 
program, development and use of data systems to leverage integrated 
data systems, data systems, data capacity support, professional 
development resources for data and institutional effectiveness 
researchers, credit for prior learning, adaptive courseware, hybrid-
flex courses, peer mentoring strategies, supplemental instruction, 
mental health, basic needs, and the integration of academic coursework 
and career advising.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that all of these are 
allowable uses. While the list provided in the proposed requirement is 
not comprehensive, several of the suggested uses are critical 
components for the PSSG program, so we have added to the list of 
examples. The list in the proposed requirement included several 
allowable uses to support Proposed Priority 5, including integrated 
career planning, counseling, and coaching, work-based learning 
opportunities, and college-to-career navigation support, so we do not 
think other examples regarding the integration of academic coursework 
and career advising are needed. It also already included basic needs 
and mental health uses. Developing and using data systems is already 
included as an allowable use and the approaches to do so are not 
limited by the current language.
    Changes: We have added using data to administer the program 
effectively at the institution and/or State or system levels, capacity 
building, and rigorous evaluation to the list of examples of allowable 
uses of funds. We also have added technology-assisted supports, 
tutoring and supplemental instruction, and peer mentoring as examples 
of allowable uses of funds for student success strategies.
    Comments: One commenter suggested that we provide that if a grantee 
uses funds to include financial assistance as a component of their 
project, they must propose to use at least one additional allowable 
component in conjunction with the financial assistance.
    Discussion: The Department does not believe such a stipulation 
necessary. As a tiered evidence program, PSSG is designed to allow the 
available evidence of what works in improving postsecondary student 
outcomes to guide applicants in designing their proposed activities. 
The Department also believes that applicants are in the best position 
to determine what uses of funds would best serve to improve their 
students' postsecondary outcomes. Under each of the priorities, 
successful applicants will identify the key project components based on 
their review of the studies they cite as evidence for their projects. 
The applicant must develop a project that meets the goals of the 
program as laid out in the priorities but can do so by selecting the 
tools that they choose.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested adding language to the 
independent evaluation requirement to ensure that the evaluations are 
``well-designed, well-implemented, and sufficiently powered'' to meet 
WWC standards for ``moderate evidence'' or ``strong evidence.''
    Discussion: The Department agrees that the evaluation of these 
projects should be well-designed, well-executed, and sufficiently 
powered to yield credible results. We will use selection criteria to 
ensure that projects include a plan to conduct evaluations that are 
intentionally designed to meet WWC standards (with or without 
reservations). As part of the selection process, WWC-certified peer 
reviewers will assess the rigor of the evaluation plans. Accordingly, 
it would be redundant to also address this area of focus in the 
independent evaluation requirement.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: While praising the requirement that evaluations be posted 
to ERIC, two commenters suggested that the Department not put the 
burden on the grantee to submit the evaluations to ERIC. Instead, they 
suggested that grantees submit the evaluation reports to the Department 
within one month of completion and the Department post this information 
to the Awards page.
    Discussion: We disagree with the commenters that requiring the 
grantee to submit evaluations to ERIC would be burdensome. We agree 
that it is critical to make sure the evaluations are transparent and 
made public. We intend

[[Page 66228]]

to share the evaluations publicly on the Department's website.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters submitted recommendations for the 
requirements of evaluations that are submitted, including that they use 
the most updated version of the WWC Handbook; that the evaluations of 
early-phase projects be designed to meet WWC standards with or without 
reservations and that the evaluations of mid-phase and expansion grants 
be designed to meet WWC standards without reservations; that 
evaluations have methodologies appropriate to the research question 
being studied; and that the Department provide institutions with clear 
guidance on how to submit a relevant study for review to determine if a 
study meets WWC standards, including that the institutions have an 
equitable opportunity to compete at the expansion phase without being 
limited based on studies that are readily accessible in WWC.
    Discussion: We appreciate the suggestions to ensure that the 
evaluation methods are all evidence based and high quality. These 
recommendations do not require rulemaking for this grant program and 
would be considered in the application and peer review process.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Two commenters recommended not restricting the indirect 
cost rate.
    Discussion: The Department maintains limiting the indirect cost 
reimbursement to 8 percent of a modified total direct cost base. The 
Department continues to believe that this limitation effectively 
maximizes the Federal resources that support direct costs associated 
with the project.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters had recommendations for the types of 
entities that would be eligible for the grant. Four commenters 
suggested that eligibility not be limited to institutions that are 
designated as a title III or V school, including one suggestion that 
public two-year community and technical colleges be added. Two 
commenters suggested allowing non-profit organizations to be an 
eligible entity alone, rather than requiring a partnership with a title 
III or V institution, and another commenter suggested that we require 
the institution to be the lead applicant. A couple commenters supported 
allowing non-profits to apply in partnership with title III or V 
institutions. One commenter asked that businesses be able to partner 
with institutions, and one commenter asked that for-profit institutions 
be prohibited from applying.
    Discussion: The Department believes that targeting funding to title 
III and V institutions is the best use of the available funds because 
these institutions disproportionately enroll students from groups who 
are underrepresented among college completers, such as students from 
low-income backgrounds. Supporting retention and completion strategies 
at these institutions offers the greatest potential to close gaps in 
postsecondary outcomes. Additionally, these under-resourced 
institutions are most in need of Federal assistance to implement and 
evaluate evidence-based postsecondary college retention and completion 
interventions. More than half of public two-year institutions are title 
III/V eligible and would be eligible for a grant. Under the eligibility 
requirement, non-profits may apply for the funding, as long as they do 
so in partnership with an institution of higher education. It does not 
matter which entity is the lead applicant since all entities applying 
through the partnership are subject to the same ``Group Application'' 
requirements under 34 CFR 75.127-129. Given that the innovation would 
need to occur at an institution, we do not believe it is workable to 
allow a non-profit to apply without partnership with an institution of 
higher education. Furthermore, there is nothing that currently 
prohibits eligible applicants from collaborating with businesses, and 
for-profit institutions are not eligible institutions.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter suggested that we specifically include 
Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) as eligible entities.
    Discussion: HSIs are eligible as title III/title V institutions.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: In Proposed Requirement 3, we specified certain 
circumstances under which the Secretary may waive the matching 
requirement on a case-by-case basis based on certain showings by the 
``lead applicant.''
    Changes: We have revised Requirement 3, section (b) Waiver 
Authority, to clarify that data showing certain exceptional 
circumstances should pertain to the ``eligible institution(s)'' instead 
of the lead applicant in order to address circumstances where certain 
eligible entities apply in partnership with title III or V 
institutions.

Definitions

    Comments: Two commenters suggested changes to the definition of 
``completions of value.'' One commenter suggested we use Threshold 0 
from the Postsecondary Value Commission framework, and another 
commenter suggested we incorporate local workforce data.
    Discussion: Our proposed definition aligns with the Postsecondary 
Value Commission framework by measuring the percentage of students 
earning enough to recoup their costs and experience an earnings premium 
over high school graduates, and adds the percentage of students 
pursuing further education. We recognize the importance of not 
comparing schools nationally on earnings and so our definition also 
utilizes State-level high school earnings data. The Department does not 
have the capacity to factor in local workforce data.
    Changes: We adjusted the definition to clarify how the percentage 
of students is calculated and how State earnings data is used in the 
construction of the metric.
    Comments: One commenter suggested that in the definition of 
``underserved student,'' we include a more detailed description of 
``student of color'' to align with the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB)'s Race and Ethnicity Standards.
    Discussion: The term ``student of color'' is undefined, consistent 
with the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities, to ensure consistency 
across the Department's discretionary grant programs and to allow 
institutions to define the term in a manner they choose, to be 
consistent with how they do so internally for other purposes.
    Changes: None.

Final Priorities

    The Secretary establishes the following priorities for use in the 
PSSG Program.
    Priority 1--Early Phase.
    Projects that are designed to improve postsecondary success for 
underserved students by increasing completions of value that lead to 
further education through upward transfer or graduate education and/or 
lead to economic mobility, and are supported by evidence that meets the 
definition of Demonstrates a Rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) or 
Promising Evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).
    Priority 2--Mid-Phase: Projects Supported by Moderate Evidence.
    Projects that are designed to improve postsecondary success for 
underserved students by increasing completions of value that lead to 
further education through upward transfer or graduate education and/or 
lead to economic mobility, and are supported by evidence that meets the 
definition of Moderate

[[Page 66229]]

Evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1). Projects under this priority must 
be implemented at multiple institutions of higher education or multiple 
campuses of the same institution and be intentionally designed to 
detect the impact of the project, if any, on all students participating 
in the project as well as on at least one population of underserved 
students or between institutions of different locales.
    Priority 3--Expansion: Projects Supported by Strong Evidence.
    Projects that are designed to improve postsecondary success for 
underserved students by increasing completions of value that lead to 
further education through upward transfer or graduate education and/or 
lead to economic mobility, and are supported by evidence that meets the 
definition of Strong Evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1). Projects 
under this priority must be implemented at multiple institutions of 
higher education and be intentionally designed to detect the impact of 
the project, if any, on all students participating in the project as 
well as on at least one population of underserved students or between 
institutions of different locales.
    Priority 4--Projects That Support College-to-Career Pathways and 
Supports.
    Projects that propose to build upon demonstrated progress toward 
integrating, or that propose a plan to integrate, career-connected 
learning and advising support into their postsecondary success 
strategies, which may include participation in experiential learning, 
to ensure students earn completions of value that lead to economic 
success and/or further education. Projects may include aligning 
academic coursework with career pathways and outcomes; developing and 
implementing program-level credential maps to create college-to-career 
pathways, including across institutions via transfer; integrating 
career planning, counseling, and coaching into holistic advising 
support; offering work-based learning opportunities aligned with 
students' programs of study; and providing navigation support to help 
graduates transition from college to career.

Types of Priorities

    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Requirements

    The Secretary establishes the following requirements for use in the 
PSSG Program.
    Requirement 1: Uses of Funds.
    Program funds must be used for one or more of the following 
allowable uses of funds:
    (a) Developing and using data systems, tools, and training to 
implement data-driven processes and interventions as part of a 
comprehensive continuous improvement effort, as well as to administer 
the program effectively at the institution and/or State or system 
levels;
    (b) Implementing student success strategies, including but not 
limited to whole-college improvement models; course redesign to 
implement co-requisite remediation or career-connected math pathways 
including through use of technology-assisted supports; tutoring and 
supplemental instruction; intensive, integrated advising models 
including program maps with progress checks, case management 
approaches, coaching, and peer mentoring; financial support, including 
need-based aid, emergency aid, and basic needs and behavioral health 
support and services; transfer support (as applicable), including four-
year transfer maps, co-enrollment and co-advising across institutions, 
and regional transfer partnerships; support for students with 
disabilities; career support, including integrated career planning, 
counseling, and coaching, work-based learning opportunities, and 
college-to-career navigation support; or other evidence-based student 
success strategies and capacity building to implement student success 
strategies; and
    (c) Providing for rigorous evaluation of the program interventions.
    Requirement 2: Indirect Cost Rate Information.
    A grantee's indirect cost reimbursement is limited to eight percent 
of a modified total direct cost base. For more information regarding 
indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please 
see www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.
    Requirement 3: Matching Requirements and Exceptions.
    (a) Matching Requirement. Grantees must provide a ten percent 
match, which may include in-kind donations.
    (b) Waiver Authority. The Secretary may waive the matching 
requirement on a case-by-case basis upon a showing of any of the 
following exceptional circumstances:
    (1) The difficulty of raising matching funds for a program to serve 
an area with high rates of poverty in the eligible institution(s)' 
geographic location(s), defined as a Census tract, a set of contiguous 
Census tracts, an American Indian Reservation, Oklahoma Tribal 
Statistical Area (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau), Alaska Native 
Village Statistical Area or Alaska Native Regional Corporation Area, 
Native Hawaiian Homeland Area, or other Tribal land or county that has 
a poverty rate of at least 25 percent as determined every 5 years using 
American Community Survey 5-Year data;
    (2) Serving a significant population of students from low-income 
backgrounds at the eligible institution(s)' location(s), defined as at 
least 50 percent (or the eligibility threshold for the appropriate 
institutional sector available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/idues/eligibility.html#app) of degree-seeking enrolled 
students receiving need-based grant aid under title IV of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA); or
    (3) Significant economic hardship as demonstrated by low average 
educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent 
undergraduate student at the eligible institution(s)' location(s), in 
comparison with the average educational and general expenditures per 
full-time equivalent undergraduate student of institutions that offer 
similar instruction without need of a waiver, as determined by the 
Secretary in accordance with the annual process of designation of title 
III and title V institutions.
    Requirement 4: Limitation on Grant Awards.
    The Department will make awards to only applicants that are not the 
individual or lead applicant in a current active grant from the PSSG 
program.

[[Page 66230]]

    Requirement 5: Supplement-not-Supplant.
    Grant funds must be used so that they supplement and, to the extent 
practical, increase the funds that would otherwise be available for the 
activities to be carried out under the grant and in no case supplant 
those funds.
    Requirement 6: Independent Evaluation.
    Grantees must conduct an independent evaluation of the 
effectiveness of the project and submit the evaluation report to ERIC, 
available at https://eric.ed.gov/, in a timely manner.
    Requirement 7: Eligible Entities.
    Eligible entities are title III or V institutions; nonprofits in 
partnership with title III or V institutions; States in partnership 
with title III or V institutions; or systems of public institutions of 
higher education.

Final Definitions

    The Secretary establishes the following definitions for use in the 
PSSG program.
    Completions of value measures the percentage of credentials that 
lead to further education through upward transfer or graduate education 
and/or that lead to economic mobility through earning enough to 
experience a premium over high school graduates in one's State and 
earning enough to recoup one's investment in postsecondary education. 
The student must also be retained at, or transferring to, an 
institution that confers completions of value.
    Continuous improvement means using plans for collecting and 
analyzing data about a project component's (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) 
implementation and outcomes (including the pace and extent to which 
project outcomes are being met) to inform necessary changes throughout 
the project. These plans may include strategies to gather ongoing 
feedback from participants and stakeholders on the implementation of 
the project component.
    English learner means an individual who is an English learner as 
defined in section 8101(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965, as amended, or an individual who is an English language 
learner as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act.
    Historically Black College or University means an institution that 
meets the eligibility requirements under section 322(2) of the HEA.
    Independent evaluation means an evaluation of a project component 
that is designed and carried out independently of, but in coordination 
with, the entities that develop or implement the project component.
    Minority-serving institution means an institution that is eligible 
to receive assistance under sections 317 through 320 of part A of title 
III, or under title V of the HEA.
    Student with a disability means any student enrolled at an 
institution of higher education (including those accepted for dual 
enrollment) who meets the definition of an individual with a disability 
as defined in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
(42 U.S.C. 12102).
    Tribally Controlled Colleges or Universities has the meaning 
ascribed it in section 316(b)(3) of the HEA.
    Underserved student means a student in one or more of the following 
subgroups:
    (a) A student who is living in poverty or is served by schools with 
high concentrations of students living in poverty.
    (b) A student of color.
    (c) A student who is a member of a federally recognized Indian 
Tribe.
    (d) An English learner.
    (e) A student with a disability.
    (f) A student experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.
    (g) A lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or 
intersex (LGBTQI+) student.
    (h) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.
    (i) A student who is the first in their family to attend 
postsecondary education.
    (j) A student enrolling in or seeking to enroll in postsecondary 
education for the first time at the age of 20 or older.
    (k) A student who is working full-time while enrolled in 
postsecondary education.
    (l) A student who is enrolled in, or is seeking to enroll in, 
postsecondary education who is eligible for a Pell Grant.
    (m) An adult student in need of improving their basic skills or an 
adult student with limited English proficiency.

Final Selection Criterion

    Using Data for Continuous Improvement.
    The extent to which the proposed project will build upon 
demonstrated progress toward improved student outcomes, or the extent 
to which the proposed project includes a plan to improve student 
outcomes for underserved students, by using data to continually assess 
and improve the outcomes associated with funded activities and sustain 
data-driven continuous improvement processes at the institution after 
the grant period.
    Applicants addressing this selection criterion must--
    (a) Identify, or describe how they will develop, the performance 
and outcome measures they will use to monitor and evaluate 
implementation of the intervention(s), including baseline data, 
intermediate and annual targets, and disaggregation by student 
subgroups;
    (b) Describe how they will assess and address gaps in current data 
systems, tools, and capacity, and how they will monitor and respond to 
performance and outcome data to improve implementation of the 
intervention(s) on an ongoing basis and as part of formative (which may 
include rapid-cycle evaluation, pilots, feasibility studies, and 
implementation research) and summative evaluation of the 
intervention(s); and
    (c) Describe how institutional leadership will be involved with, 
and supportive of, project leadership and how the project relates to 
the institution's broader student success priorities and improvement 
processes.
    This document does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use any of these priorities, requirements, 
definitions, or selection criterion, we invite applications through a 
notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) determines whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and 
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 
amended by Executive Order 14094, 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 $200 million or more 
(adjusted every three years by the Administrator of Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic 
product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector 
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal 
governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;

[[Page 66231]]

    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would 
meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles set 
forth in this Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely 
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 
as amended by Executive Order 14094.
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
    To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that 
an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criterion only on a reasoned determination that their 
benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize 
net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department 
believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles 
in Executive Order 13563.
    The potential costs associated with these priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criterion would be minimal, while the 
potential benefits are significant. The Department believes that this 
final regulatory action would not impose significant costs on eligible 
entities. Participation in this program is voluntary, and the costs 
imposed on applicants by this regulatory action would be limited to 
paperwork burden related to preparing an application. The potential 
benefits of implementing the program would outweigh the costs incurred 
by applicants, and the costs of carrying out activities associated with 
the application would be paid for with program funds. For these 
reasons, we have determined that the costs of implementation would not 
be burdensome for eligible applicants, including small entities.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that these final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criterion would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The small entities that this final regulatory action would affect 
are institutions that meet the applicable eligibility requirements. The 
Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the final 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion would be 
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and 
that the benefits would outweigh any costs incurred by applicants.
    Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the 
final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion 
would impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for 
funding under the program. We expect that in determining whether to 
apply for PSSG program funds, an eligible applicant would evaluate the 
requirements of preparing an application and any associated costs and 
weigh them against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving PSSG 
funds. Eligible applicants most likely would apply only if they 
determine that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an 
application. The likely benefits include the potential receipt of a 
grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an entity through 
its development of an application.
    This final regulatory action would not have a significant economic 
impact on any small entity once it receives a grant because it would be 
able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under 
this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies 
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections 
of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This helps ensure that the public 
understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents 
provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden 
(time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are 
clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact 
of collection requirements on respondents.
    The final selection criterion contains information collection 
requirements. Under the PRA the Department has submitted this selection 
criterion to OMB for its review.
    A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of 
information unless OMB approves the collection

[[Page 66232]]

under the PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument 
displays a currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any 
other provision of the law, no person is required to comply with, or is 
subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of 
information if the collection instrument does not display a currently 
valid OMB control number.

Collection of Information: Using Data for Continuous Improvement

    Eligible entities under this program are title III or V 
institutions; nonprofits in partnership with title III or V 
institutions; States in partnership with title III or V institutions; 
or systems of public institutions of higher education. The collection 
of information would include eligible applicants responding to this 
final selection criterion: Using Data for Continuous Improvement, which 
we changed from a priority to a selection criterion based on public 
comment in response to the NPP. The Department will utilize the 
selection criteria in selecting eligible applicants for funding. 
Eligible applicants must respond to the selection criteria within the 
application package for this program. We estimate the annual burden for 
the information collection to average 8,400 hours, from 210 eligible 
applicants at 40 hours per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. Thus, we estimate the total burden for this 
collection to be 8,400 hours. At $47.20 per hour, the total annualized 
estimated cost for 210 eligible applicants to respond to final 
selection criteria is approximately $396,480.
    Consistent with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the Department is soliciting 
comments on the information collection through this document. Between 
30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal 
Register, OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections 
of information contained in this requirement. Therefore, to ensure that 
OMB gives your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB 
receives your comments on the Postsecondary Student Success Grant 
(PSSG) Program Application Information Collection Request by September 
16, 2024. Comments related to the information collection activities 
must be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
at www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number ED-2024-OPE-
0069 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery by 
referencing the Docket ID number and the title of the information 
collection request at the top of your comment. Comments submitted by 
postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the PRA Coordinator of 
the Strategic Collections and Clearance Governance and Strategy 
Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 
4C210, Washington, DC 20202-1200.
    We consider your comments on this proposed collection of 
information in--
     Deciding whether the proposed collection is 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 collection, 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.
    Accessible Format: On request to one of the program contact persons 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with 
disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The 
Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that 
may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, 
an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other 
accessible format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other Department documents published in the 
Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use 
PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access Department documents published in the Federal 
Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Nasser Paydar,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2024-17709 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P