FR Doc 2010-24324

[Federal Register: October 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 206)]

[Rules and Regulations] 

[Page 65711-65803]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr26oc10-11] 

Download:

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

[[Page 65711]]

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

Part II

Department of Education

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

34 CFR Parts 206, 642, 643, et al.

High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program, 

The Federal TRIO Programs, and Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness 

for Undergraduate Program; Final Rule

[[Page 65712]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Parts 206, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, and 694

RIN 1840-AD01

[Docket ID ED-2010-OPE-0002]

High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant 

Program, The Federal TRIO Programs, and Gaining Early Awareness and 

Readiness for Undergraduate Program
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education and Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulations, and establishes new 

regulations, for the High School Equivalency Program and College 

Assistance Migrant Program (HEP and CAMP); the Federal TRIO programs 

(TRIO programs--Training program for Federal TRIO programs (Training), 

Talent Search (TS), Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC), Upward Bound 

(UB), Student Support Services (SSS), and the Ronald E. McNair 

Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair) programs); and the Gaining Early 

Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate (GEAR UP) program.

 The purpose of HEP is to help migrant and seasonal farmworkers and 

their immediate family members obtain a general educational development 

(GED) credential, while CAMP assists students from this background to 

complete their first academic year of college and continue in 

postsecondary education. The Federal TRIO programs consist of five 

postsecondary educational opportunity outreach and support programs 

designed to motivate and assist low-income individuals, firstgeneration college students, and individuals with disabilities to enter 

and complete secondary and postsecondary programs of study and enroll 

in graduate programs, and a training program for project staff working 

in one or more of the Federal TRIO programs. The purpose of the GEAR UP 

program is to increase the number of low-income students who are 

prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education.

 These regulations are needed to implement provisions of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) by the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA) that relate to the HEP and CAMP, Federal 

TRIO programs, and GEAR UP program.

DATES: Effective Date: These regulations are effective December 27, 

2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, Pamela J. 

Maimer, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 8014, 

Washington, DC 20006-8014. Telephone: (202) 502-7704 or via the 

Internet at: Pamela.Maimer@ed.gov.

 For information related to HEP and CAMP issues, Nathan Weiss, U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of Migrant Education, 400 Maryland Ave. 

SW., room 3E-321, Washington, DC 20202-6135. Telephone: (202) 260-7496 

or via the Internet at: Nathan.Weiss@ed.gov.

 For information related to Federal TRIO issues, Frances Bergeron, 

U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 7059, 

Washington, DC 20006-7059. Telephone: (202) 502-7528 or via the 

Internet at Frances.Bergeron@ed.gov.

 For information related to GEAR UP issues, James Davis, U.S. 

Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 6109, Washington, DC 

20006-6109. Telephone: (202) 502-7802 or via the Internet at: 

James.Davis@ed.gov.

 If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

 Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an 

accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 

diskette) on request to any of the contact persons listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 23, 2010, the Secretary published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the HEP and CAMP, the Federal 

TRIO programs, and the GEAR UP program in the Federal Register (75 FR 

13814). In the preamble to the NPRM, the Secretary discussed on pages 

13816 through 13859 the major changes proposed in that document to 

strengthen and improve the administration of the HEP and CAMP, the 

Federal TRIO programs, and the GEAR UP program authorized under the 

HEA.

 These final regulations implement changes made by the HEOA to 

discretionary grant programs authorized by title IV of the HEA, 

including:

 HEP and CAMP:

 Amending Sec. 206.3(a)(1) for HEP and CAMP to allow 

students to qualify for the program through their own qualifying work, 

or that of an immediate family member, rather than only through their 

own work or that of a parent, as the statute previously held (see 

section 418A(b)(B)(i) of the HEA).

 Amending Sec. 206.5(c) to define the term immediate 

family member to include only individuals who are dependent upon a 

migrant or seasonal farmworker (see section 418A(b)(B)(i) of the HEA).

 Amending Sec. 206.5(c) to revise the definition of the 

term seasonal farmworker to clarify that the individual's primary 

employment in migrant and seasonal farmwork must occur for at least 75 

days within the past 24 months (see section 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) of the 

HEA).

 Amending the authorized HEP services section in Sec. 

206.10(b) to (1) provide that permissible HEP services include 

preparation for college entrance examinations; (2) provide that 

permissible HEP services include all stipends--not only weekly 

stipends--for HEP participants; (3) add transportation and child care 

as examples of essential supportive services; and (4) specify that HEP 

services include other activities to improve persistence and retention 

in postsecondary education (see section 418A(b) of the HEA).

 Amending CAMP services in Sec. 206.10(b)(2) to specify 

that: (1) Permissible CAMP services include supportive and 

instructional services to improve placement, persistence, and retention 

in postsecondary education; (2) these supportive services include 

personal, academic, career, economic education, or personal finance 

counseling as an ongoing part of the program, and (3) permissible CAMP 

services include internships (see section 418A(c)(1) of the HEA).

 Amending Sec. 206.11(b) to specify that follow-up CAMP 

services include: (1) Referring CAMP students to on-campus or offcampus providers of counseling services, academic assistance, or 

financial aid, and coordinating those services, assistance, and aid 

with other non-program services, assistance, and aid, including 

services, assistance, and aid provided by community-based 

organizations, which may include mentoring and guidance, and (2) for 

students attending two-year institutions of higher education, 

encouraging the students to transfer to four-year institutions of 

higher education, where appropriate, and monitoring the rate of 

transfer of these students (see section 418A(c)(2) of the HEA).

 Amending Sec. 206.20(b)(2) to specify that the Secretary 

must not allocate an amount less than $180,000 for HEP and CAMP grants 

(see section 418A(e) of the HEA).
[[Page 65713]]

 Adding Sec. 206.31 to the HEP and CAMP program 

regulations to specify the criteria the Department considers in 

evaluating prior experience (see section 418A(f) of the HEA).

Federal TRIO Programs

 Amending Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), 

645.6(b) (UB), 646.7(b) (SSS), and 647.7(b) (McNair) to revise or add 

definitions for different campus and different population, which change 

the prior regulatory definitions of these terms for the SSS program and 

the Department's administrative practice with regard to the number of 

applications an eligible entity may submit under each of the TRIO 

programs (see section 402A(h)(1) and (h)(2) of the HEA).

 Adding new Sec. Sec. 642.11 and 642.12 (Training) and 

amending Sec. 643.4 (TS), part 645 (UB, Upward Bound Math and Science 

(UBMS), and Veterans Upward Bound (VUB)) Sec. 646.4 (SSS), and Sec. 

647.4 (McNair) to specify the services or activities that projects 

funded under the Federal TRIO programs must provide and the services or 

activities that these projects may provide.

 Amending Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), 

645.6(b) (UB), and 646.7(b) (SSS) to add new categories of participants 

(foster care youth and homeless children and youth) for whom projects 

funded under these programs are to provide services (see section 

402A(e)(3) of the HEA).

 Amending newly redesignated Sec. 642.22 (Training) and 

Sec. Sec. 643.22 (TS), 644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and 

647.22 (McNair) to align prior experience determinations with 

statutorily revised outcome criteria (see section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the 

HEA (TS), section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA (UB), section 402A(f)(3)(C) 

of the HEA (SSS), section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA (McNair), and 

section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA (EOC)).

 Adding Sec. Sec. 642.25 (Training), 643.24 (TS), 644.24 

(EOC), 645.35 (UB), 646.24 (SSS), and 647.24 (McNair) to provide a new 

procedure to allow unsuccessful grant applicants to request a review of 

alleged technical, administrative, or scoring errors that affected the 

applicant's application.

 Amending newly redesignated Sec. 642.6(b) (Training) and 

Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), 646.7(b) 

(SSS), and 647.7(b) (McNair) to revise definitions for some terms and 

to add new definitions to implement amendments to the HEA by the HEOA:

 Financial and economic literacy (Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 

644.7(b) (EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), 646.7(b) (SSS), and 647.7(b) (McNair)) 

(see section 402B(b)(6) of the HEA (TS), section 402C(b)(6) of the HEA 

(UB), section 402D(b)(4) of the HEA (SSS), section 402E(c)(1) of the 

HEA (McNair)), and section 402F(b)(5) of the HEA (EOC)).

 Foster care youth and homeless children and youth (newly 

redesignated Sec. 642.6(b) (Training) and Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 

644.7(b) (EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), and 646.7(b) (SSS)) (see sections 

402A(e)(3) and 402B(c)(7) of the HEA (TS), section 402C(d)(7) of the 

HEA (UB), section 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6) of the HEA (SSS), section 

402F(b)(11) of the HEA (EOC), and section 402G(b)(5) of the HEA 

(Training)).

 Graduate center; groups underrepresented in graduate 

school; and research and scholarly activities (Sec. 647.7(b) (McNair)) 

(see sections 101 and 102 of the HEA and section 402E(d)(2) of the HEA 
(McNair)).

 Individual with a disability (newly redesignated Sec. 

642.6(b) (Training) and Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), 

645.6(b) (UB), and 646.7(b) (SSS)) (see section 402B(c)(7) of the HEA 

(TS), section 402C(d)(7) of the HEA (UB), section 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6) 

of the HEA (SSS), section 402F(b)(11) of the HEA (EOC), and section 

402G(b)(5) of the HEA (Training)).

 Individual who has a high risk for academic failure and 

veteran who has a high risk for academic failure (Sec. 645.6(b) (UB 

and VUB)) (see sections 402A(f)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv) and 402C(e)(2) of 

the HEA (UB)).

 Institution of higher education (newly redesignated Sec. 

642.6(b) (Training) and Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), 

645.6(b) (UB), 646.7(b) (SSS), and 647.7(b) (McNair)) (see sections 101 

and 102 of the HEA).

 Regular secondary school diploma and rigorous secondary 

school program of study (Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS) and 645.6(b) (UB)) 

(see section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iii) and (iv) of the HEA (TS) and section 

402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA (UB)).

 Veteran (newly redesignated Sec. 642.6(b) (Training) and 

Sec. Sec. 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), and 645.6 (b) (UB)) (see 

section 402A(h)(5) of the HEA (TS, EOC, and UB)).

 Additionally, the regulations for the TRIO programs were amended to 

reflect other changes made by the HEOA, other amendments to the HEA, 

and established administrative practices. These changes include the 

following:

 Amending the project period for the TRIO programs in newly 

redesignated Sec. 642.4 (Training) and Sec. Sec. 643.5 (TS), 644.5 

(EOC), 645.34 (UB), 646.5 (SSS), and 647.5 (McNair) to define the 

project period as two years for Training and five years for TS, EOC, 

UB, SSS, and McNair (see section 402A(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the HEA).

 Revising the selection criteria related to ``Objectives'' 

for the following TRIO pre-college and college programs: TS (Sec. 

643.21(b)); EOC (Sec. 644.21(b)); UB (Sec. 645.31(b)(1), VUB (Sec. 

645.31(b)(2)); SSS (Sec. 646.21(b)); and McNair (Sec. 647.21(b)) (see 

section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA (TS), section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA 

(UB), section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA (SSS), section 402A(f)(3)(D) of 

the HEA (McNair), and section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA (EOC)).

 Removing the minimum number of participants in the 

regulations for TS, EOC, UB, UBMS, and VUB projects (see sections 

402A(f), 402A(b)(3), 402B (TS), 402C (UB), 402F (EOC) of the HEA). For 

each grant competition, the Department will establish the minimum 

number of participants to be served by a grantee through the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications.

 Amending newly redesignated Sec. Sec. 642.22 and 642.24 

of the TRIO Training regulations to reflect current law and practice 

regarding: (1) The need for the project selection criteria and the 

process for ranking applications by priority; (2) the use of prior 

experience points in the ranking of applications for funding; and (3) 

the number of prior experience points that can be earned (see section 

402G(2) of the HEA).

GEAR UP

 Redesignating Sec. 694.15 as Sec. 694.19 to accommodate 

the proposed addition of other regulatory provisions. Amending newly 

redesignated Sec. 694.19 to provide that the Secretary award 
competitive preference priority points to an eligible applicant for a 

State GEAR UP grant that has both carried out a successful State GEAR 

UP grant prior to August 14, 2008, and demonstrated a prior commitment 

to early intervention leading to college access through collaboration 

and replication of successful strategies; and to specify how the 

Department determines whether a State GEAR UP grant has been 

``successful'' (see section 404A(b)(3) of the HEA).

 Adding Sec. 694.20 to explain when a GEAR UP grantee is 

allowed to provide services to students attending an institution of 

higher education (see section 404A(b)(2) of the HEA).

 Adding new Sec. 694.24 to require grantees that continue 

to provide services to students through their first year of attendance 

at an institution of higher education, to the extent practicable, to 

coordinate with other campus programs in order not to duplicate 

services (see section 404A(b)(2) of the HEA).

[[Page 65714]]

 Amending Sec. 694.7(a)(2) to require that a GEAR UP 

grantee make substantial progress towards meeting the matching 

percentage stated in its approved application for each year of the 

project period. Grantees are no longer required to meet the matching 

requirement each year of the project period (section 404C(b)(1) of the 

HEA).

 Adding new Sec. 694.8 to: (1) Provide authority for the 

Secretary to approve a Partnership applicant's request for a waiver of 

up to 50 or 75 percent of the matching requirement for up to two years 

under certain circumstances; and (2) create a multiple-tiered system 

for different types of waiver requests (see section 404C(b)(2) of the 

HEA).

 Adding new Sec. 694.8(b)(3) to specify that at the time 

of application, the Secretary may provide tentative approval of a 

Partnership applicant's request for a 50-percent waiver for the entire 

project period so that a Partnership applicant that meets the 

conditions for such a waiver has an opportunity to apply for a grant 

without needing to identify additional sources of match funding in the 

later years of the project period (see section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA).

 Adding new Sec. Sec. 694.21 and 694.22 to specify 

required and allowable activities and separate these required and 

allowable activities into multiple regulatory sections (section 404D of 

the HEA).

 Adding new Sec. 694.22(e) to specify that GEAR UP 

grantees may provide activities that support participating students to 

develop graduation and career plans, including career awareness and 

planning assistance as they relate to a rigorous academic curriculum 

(see section 404D(b)(5)(D) of the HEA).

 Adding newly redesignated Sec. Sec. 694.13 and new 694.14 

to clarify that GEAR UP funds may be used to support the costs of 

administering a scholarship program as well as the costs of the 

scholarships themselves (see sections 404E(a)(1) and 404D(b)(7) of the 

HEA).

 Adding new Sec. 694.24 to describe the types of services 

that a grantee may provide to students in their first year of 

attendance at an institution of higher education and listing examples 

of these services (see section 404D of the HEA).

 Amending newly redesignated Sec. 694.13(a) to specify the 

minimum amount of scholarship funding for an eligible student, and 
provide that the State or Partnership awarding the GEAR UP scholarship 

may reduce the scholarship amount if an eligible student who is awarded 

a GEAR UP scholarship attends an institution of higher education on a 

less than full-time basis during any award year (see section 404E(d) of 

the HEA).

 Adding new Sec. 694.14(b) to incorporate the statutory 

definition of the term eligible student (from section 404E(g) of the 

HEA) in the program regulations.

 Clarifying in new Sec. 694.14(c)(2) the amount of funds 

that State grantees that do not receive a waiver of the requirement 

that States must expend at least 50 percent of their GEAR UP funding on 

scholarships must hold in reserve for scholarships and how States must 

use these funds (see section 404E(e) of the HEA).

 Clarifying in newly redesignated Sec. 694.13(c) that 

scholarships must be made to all students who are eligible under the 

definition in Sec. 694.13(d) and that a grantee may not impose 

additional eligibility criteria that would have the effect of limiting 

or denying a scholarship to an eligible student (see section 404E(e) 

and (g) of the HEA).

 Adding new 694.14(e) to specify that States awarding 

scholarships must provide information on the eligibility requirements 

for the scholarships to all participating students upon the students' 

entry into the GEAR UP program (see section 404E(c) of the HEA).

 Adding new 694.14(f) to specify that States must provide 

scholarship funds to all eligible students who attend an institution of 

higher education in the State, and may provide these scholarship funds 

to eligible students who attend institutions of higher education 

outside the State (see section 404E(e) and (g) of the HEA).

 Specifying in new Sec. 694.14(g) that a State or 

Partnership that chooses to participate in the scholarship component in 

accordance with section 404E of the HEA may award continuation 

scholarships in successive award years to each student who received an 

initial scholarship and who is enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a 

program of undergraduate instruction at an institution of higher 

education (see section 404E of the HEA).

 Amending newly redesignated Sec. 694.15 to specify that a 

GEAR UP Partnership that does not participate in the GEAR UP 

scholarship component may provide financial assistance for 

postsecondary education using non-Federal funds, and those funds may be 

used to comply with the program's matching requirement (see section 

404C(b) of the HEA).

 Adding new Sec. 694.16 to specify the requirements for 

the return of scholarship funds. Specifically, (1) providing that 

scholarship funds held in reserve by States under Sec. Sec. 

694.12(b)(1) or 694.12(c) or by Partnerships under section 404D(b)(7) 

of the HEA that are not used by an eligible student within six years of 

the student's scheduled completion of secondary school may be 

redistributed by the grantee to other eligible students; (2) requiring 

the return of remaining Federal funds within 45 days after the six-year 

period for expending the scholarship funds expires; (3) requiring 

grantees to annually furnish information, as the Secretary may require, 

on the amount of Federal and non-Federal funds reserved and held for 

GEAR UP scholarships and the disbursement of those funds to eligible 

students until these funds are fully expended or returned to the 

Secretary; and (4) providing that a scholarship fund under the GEAR UP 

program is subject to audit or monitoring by authorized representatives 

of the Secretary throughout the life of the fund (see section 
404E(e)(4) of the HEA).

 Adding new Sec. 694.25 to require grantees that receive 

initial grant awards after the passage of the HEOA to continue to serve 

students from a previous grant received by the grantee (see section 

404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA).

 Adding new Sec. 694.25(a) to clarify whom a grantee must 

serve if not all students in the cohort attend the same school after 

the cohort completes the last grade level offered by the school at 

which the cohort began to receive GEAR UP services (see section 404B(d) 

of the HEA).

 Amending newly redesignated Sec. 694.18 to specify that 

21st Century Scholarship Certificates are to be provided by the 

grantees (rather than by the Secretary to the grantees), and must 

indicate the estimated amount of any scholarship that a student may be 

eligible to receive.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

 The regulations in this document were developed through the use of 

negotiated rulemaking. Section 492 of the HEA requires that, before 

publishing any proposed regulations to implement programs under title 

IV of the HEA, the Secretary must obtain public involvement in the 

development of the proposed regulations. After obtaining advice and 

recommendations, the Secretary must conduct a negotiated rulemaking 

process to develop the proposed regulations. The negotiated rulemaking 

committee did not reach consensus on the proposed regulations that were 

published on March 23, 2010. The Secretary invited comments on the 

proposed regulations by April 22, 2010. In response to the Secretary's 

invitation in the NPRM to the proposed

[[Page 65715]]

regulations, 455 parties submitted comments on the proposed 

regulations. An analysis of the comments and of the changes in the 

regulations since publication of the NPRM follows.

 We group major issues according to subject, with appropriate 

sections of the regulations referenced in parentheses. We discuss other 

substantive issues under the sections of the regulations to which they 

pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor 

changes, suggested changes that the law does not authorize the 

Secretary to make, or comments pertaining to issues that were not 

within the scope of the NPRM.

Part 206--Special Educational Programs for Students Whose Families Are 

Engaged in Migrant and Other Seasonal Farmwork--High School Equivalency 

Program (HEP) and College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP)

Who May Benefit From HEP and CAMP? (34 CFR Part 206)

 Comment: One commenter inquired as to whether HEP would only 

benefit farm workers and their families and stated that there were 

others, not necessarily in that group, who could potentially be helped 

by this program.

 Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's view that HEP could 

potentially help individuals who are not migrant and seasonal 

farmworkers. However, section 418A of the HEA, which authorizes both 

HEP and CAMP, requires that program activities focus on migrant and 
seasonal farmworkers and their immediate family. The Department does 

not have the authority to expand this statutorily prescribed 

requirement.

 Changes: None.

Types of Services for CAMP Projects (Sec. 206.10(b)(2))

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: In our review of Sec. 206.10(b)(2), we realized that 

Sec. 206.10(b)(2)(iv) contained a typographical error and we have 

corrected it.

 Changes: In Sec. 206.10(b)(2)(iv), we have removed the word 

``student'' and added, in its place, the word ``students'' to correct a 

typographical error.

Prior Experience in HEP and CAMP (Sec. 206.31(a))

 Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department revise the 

wording of a note that was included in the NPRM's preamble discussion 

of prior experience under HEP and CAMP. Specifically, the commenter 

suggested deleting the phrase ``for the priority'' from the following 

note, which appeared on page 13820 of the NPRM (75 FR 13814, 13820):

 ``Note: The TRIO programs have had a longstanding requirement 

that only applicants with an expiring TRIO project are eligible for 

the priority for prior experience. Consequently, in providing the 

same degree of consideration for prior experience as provided under 

the Federal TRIO programs, we view this aspect of proposed Sec. 

206.31(a) to be statutorily required.''

 Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern for clarifying 

this language from the preamble of the NPRM. In this notice of final 

regulations, we make changes, if appropriate, to the regulations 

themselves, not language from the preamble of the NPRM. Moreover, we do 

not believe that any change to the regulations themselves is necessary 

because Sec. 206.31(a) refers only to the Secretary considering the 

applicant's experience in implementing an expiring HEP project; it does 

not use the phrase ``for the priority''.

 Changes: None.

Federal TRIO Programs--34 CFR Parts 642 (Training Program for Federal 

TRIO Programs), 643 (Talent Search), 644 (Educational Opportunity 

Centers), 645 (Upward Bound Program), 646 (Student Support Services 

Program), 647 (Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program)

 Section 403(a) of the HEOA amended section 402A of the HEA to 

include a number of new requirements that apply across the Federal TRIO 

programs (i.e., the Talent Search (TS), Upward Bound (UB), Student 

Support Services (SSS), Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement 

(McNair), Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC), and Staff Development 

Activities (Training) programs). Additionally, section 403(b) through 

(g) of the HEOA amended sections 402B, 402C, 402D, 402E, 402F, and 

402G, to make specific changes to the TS, UB, SSS, McNair, EOC, and 

Training programs, respectively.

 We have organized the discussion of comments received on and 

responses to the proposed changes to the specific Federal TRIO program 

regulations by first addressing crosscutting issues by subject matter 
and then discussing program-specific issues on a program-by-program 

basis.

 Our discussion of comments applicable to specific programs follows 

the order of the Department's regulations for those programs (i.e., 34 

CFR parts 642 (Training), 643 (TS), 644 (EOC), 645 (UB), 646 (SSS), and 

647 (McNair)).

Number of Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit To Serve Different 

Campuses and Different Populations

 Comment: One commenter expressed concern that an applicant that 

submitted a TRIO Program grant application to provide services to one 

of the different populations identified by the Secretary in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications for one fiscal year competition 

would be ineligible to submit an application for a new grant award to 

continue the existing project if the population served by the existing 

project was not designated as an eligible population in the notice 

inviting applications for the next competition. The commenter suggested 

that the Department include language in the regulations to ensure that 

an applicant with an expiring grant will be eligible to apply for a new 

grant in a subsequent competition to serve the same population of 

students.

 Discussion: As part of the HEOA, Congress significantly revised the 

definition of ``eligible population'' in section 402A(h)(2) of the HEA. 

To implement this statutory change, the regulations specify that, for 

each competition, the Department will designate in the Federal Register 

notice inviting applications for the competition, the different 

populations for which an entity may submit a separate application (see 

Sec. Sec. 642.7 (Training) \1\, 643.10(b) (TS), 644.10(b) (EOC), 

645.20(b) (UB), 646.10(b) (SSS), and 647.10(b) (McNair).

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

 \1\ For the Training Program, the Federal Register notice 

inviting applications will include the statutory and other 

priorities that applicants must address for the competition. 

Training program grantees will provide training on the topics 

identified in the published priorities.

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

 Under these regulations, therefore, an entity that previously 

received a grant to serve a particular population would be eligible to 

submit an application for a new grant to continue serving the same 

population if that population is included as a designated population in 

the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the new 

competition. If the population served by the grantee is not designated 

for the new competition, the entity would not be eligible to apply for 

a grant to continue to serve the same population it served under the 

expiring grant. While an entity with an expiring grant serving another 

population could apply for a grant to serve one of the populations 

designated in the notice inviting applications for the new competition,

the entity would not be eligible for PE points based on its expiring 

grant.

 Changes: None.

[[Page 65716]]

Designating Different Populations in the Federal Register Notice 
Inviting Applications

 Comment: One commenter questioned whether designating different 

populations for each competition was consistent with the TRIO programs' 

goals. The commenter believed that this approach would politicize the 

application process because it would force applicants to constantly 

change the focus of their projects to meet the changing requirements of 

the times. Ultimately, the commenter expressed concern that the 

proposed approach would destabilize the programs because it would 

reduce the effectiveness of the grantees.

 Discussion: We do not agree that the designation of different 

populations to be served for each competition will politicize the 

application process or reduce the effectiveness of the TRIO programs 

because most of the projects funded under any competition will be for 

traditional TRIO projects (i.e., projects that provide services to 

eligible participants--low-income, first-generation college students, 

and students with disabilities--but that do not focus services on a 

specific population). For example, during the FY 2010 SSS grant 

competition only a small percentage of the applicants proposed projects 

to serve different populations that had distinct needs for specialized 

services that could not be addressed through a regular SSS project. As 

discussed in the NPRM, 75 FR at 13821-22, the designation of different 

populations for each competition will give the Department the 

flexibility to address changing national needs and to ensure that 

Federal funds are targeted to areas or populations most in need. The 

Secretary believes that it is appropriate to change the focus of the 

TRIO programs if the national needs change. That said, this does not 

mean that the Department will change the designated populations for 

each new competition.

 Changes: None.

Clarification of the Term ``Designated Different Population''

 Comment: One commenter asked for clarification regarding what 

qualifies as a designated different population.

 Discussion: Section 402A(c)(5) of the HEA, as amended by section 

403(a)(2)(C) of the HEOA, provides that the Secretary may not limit the 

number of applications submitted by an eligible entity under any 

Federal TRIO program if the additional applications describe programs 

serving different populations or different campuses. Section 402A(h)(2) 

of the HEA defines ``different population'' as a group of individuals 

that an eligible entity desires to serve using a Federal TRIO grant and 

that is separate and distinct from any other population that the entity 

has applied to serve, or that, while sharing some of the same needs as 

another population, has distinct needs for specialized services. The 

definition sections of each of the TRIO program regulations will 

include the new statutory definition for ``different population'' for 

each program to which the term applies. In addition, each of the TRIO 

program regulations provide that the Secretary will designate, in the 

Federal Register notice inviting applications and other published 

application materials for each competition, the different populations 

for which an eligible entity can submit separate applications. 

Therefore, what qualifies as a designated different population for each 

grant competition will be determined by the Department and described in 

the Federal Register notice inviting applications for that competition. 

For example, under the FY 2010 SSS grant competition, the Secretary 

designated projects that serve five different populations: Individuals 
with disabilities, individuals for whom English is a second language, 

individuals pursing science, technology, engineering and math 

disciplines, individuals pursuing teacher preparation, and individuals 

pursuing health sciences.

 Changes: None.

Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO Program Definition 

of Financial and Economic Literacy (Sec. Sec. 643.7, 644.7, 645.6, 

646.7, 647.7)

 Comment: One commenter suggested that providing education or 

counseling services designed to improve financial and economic literacy 

should be a required service for all TRIO programs. Multiple commenters 

noted that EOC projects do not have enough time or resources to provide 

education or counseling services to improve participants' knowledge 

about all of the examples of personal financial decision-making listed 

in the definition of financial and economic literacy.

 Discussion: Under these regulations, all Federal TRIO programs--

other than the Training program--include as a mandatory or permissible 

activity providing education or counseling services designed to improve 

the financial and economic literacy of participants (see Sec. Sec. 

643.4(a)(6) TS),\2\ 644.4(e) (EOC), 645.11(a)(6) (UB), 646.4(a)(4) 

(SSS), and 647.4(b)(1) (McNair)). The definition of financial and 

economic literacy is consistent across programs. We intended the 

proposed definition to include a non-exhaustive list of examples of the 

types of knowledge that comprise knowledge about personal financial 

decision-making. We have made minor changes to this definition to make 

clear that the list of examples is not exhaustive and is not a list of 

mandatory activities.

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

 \2\ In the case of the TS program, projects must provide 

connections for participants to education or counseling services 

designed to improve the financial and economic literacy of the 

participants or the participants' parents, including financial 

planning for postsecondary education.

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

 Changes: For clarity we have changed the phrase ``including but not 

limited to'' to ``which may include but is not limited to'' in order to 

emphasize that the list of types of knowledge that may constitute 

knowledge about personal financial decision-making is not exhaustive 

and is not a list of mandatory activities.

 Comment: A number of commenters recommended changes to the language 

used for some of the examples included in the definition of the term 

financial and economic literacy. One commenter suggested changing the 

reference to ``secondary education'' in Sec. 646.7 (SSS) to 

``postsecondary education''. Other commenters suggested that we add the 

term ``postbaccalaureate'' after the reference to ``postsecondary'', 

that we change the words ``scholarship, grant and loan education'' to 

``financial assistance education,'' and that we include the word 

``assistanceships'' in the definition of financial and economic 

literacy.

 Discussion: We generally agree with these requested changes because 

we believe that they help to clarify the types of knowledge one should 

have to be financially and economically literate. Therefore, we have 

revised Sec. Sec. 643.7, 644.7, 645.6, 646.7, 647.7 to make these 
changes. With respect to the request to add the words ``financial 

assistance education,'' we agree with the concept behind the comment 

but believe it is more appropriate to refer to ``financial assistance'' 

because it is knowledge about financial assistance, not financial 

assistance education, that is relevant.

 Changes: In the definition of financial and economic literacy in 

Sec. 646.7 (SSS), we have changed the reference to ``secondary 

education'' to ``postsecondary education''. In addition, in the 

definition of financial and economic literacy included in the 

regulations for the TS, EOC, UB, and McNair programs, we have added the 

term ``postbaccalaureate'' after the reference to ``postsecondary'', 

replaced the words ``scholarship, grant and loan education'' with the 

words ``financial

[[Page 65717]]

assistance,'' and included ``assistanceships'' as an example.

Definition of Homeless Children and Youth (Sec. Sec. 642.6, 643.7, 

644.7, 645.6, 646.7)

 Comment: Multiple commenters asked for clarification of the 

definition of ``youth''. These commenters stated that the McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act defines the age of children and youth as 

ending prior to being college aged. The commenters expressed concern 

that this definition would limit the services that TRIO programs could 

offer to these students. One commenter asked if homeless children and 

youth will be a separate group of eligible participants like firstgeneration or low-income students.

 Discussion: The McKinney-Vento Act defines ``homeless children and 

youths'' in terms of what qualifies the individual as homeless, not by 

age.\3\ Therefore, there is no cut-off age for the definition of 

``youth'' in the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.

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

 \3\ Subtitle B of Title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 

Assistance Act defines ``homeless'' as follows:

 The term ``homeless children and youths''--

 (A) Means individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate 

nighttime residence (within the meaning of section 103(a)(1)); and

 (B) includes--

 (i) children and youths who are sharing the housing of other 

persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar 

reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping 

grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are 

living in emergency or transitional shelters; are abandoned in 

hospitals; or are awaiting foster care placement;

 (ii) children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence 

that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily

used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (within 

the meaning of section 103(a)(2)(C));

 (iii) children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public 

spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train 

stations, or similar settings; and

 (iv) migratory children (as such term is defined in section 1309 

of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) who qualify 

as homeless for the purposes of this subtitle because the children 
are living in circumstances described in clauses (i) through (iii).

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

 Those TRIO programs that provide pre-college programs assist 

students who are individuals covered by the definition of homeless 

children and youth in the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. In 

the SSS program, however, assistance for securing temporary housing 

during breaks in the academic year may be provided to students who are 

homeless children and youths or formerly homeless children or youths 

(see Sec. 646.30(j)).

 Finally, while section 402A(c)(6) of the HEA requires TRIO 

projects, as appropriate, to make services available to homeless 

children and youths, homeless children and youths are not a separate 

group of eligible participants. Therefore, homeless children and youths 

are only eligible if they also meet the program's participant 

eligibility criteria (e.g., low-income, first-generation).

 Changes: None

Definition of Individual With a Disability (Sec. Sec. 642.6, 643.7, 

644.7, 645.6, and 646.7)

 Comment: Multiple commenters requested that we broaden the 

definition of the term individuals with disabilities to mirror the 

language used in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Another 

commenter requested clarification on whether the inclusion of the term 

``individual with disabilities'' means that a student with a documented 

disability or individualized education plan could participate in a TRIO 

project even if he or she does not meet one of the other eligibility 

criteria.

 Discussion: The ADA, as revised by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 

defines the term ``disability'' to mean, with respect to an individual, 

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or 

more major life activities of such an individual, (B) a record of such 

an impairment or (C) being regarded as having such an ``impairment.'' 

This definition also applies under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended (Section 504). We agree that it is appropriate 

to use a definition of an individual with a disability that 

incorporates the ADA's definition of ``disability.'' Accordingly, we 

have changed the definition of individual with disabilities to be a 

definition of the term individual with a disability and we define 

individual with a disability to mean a person with a disability, as 

that term is defined in section 12102 of the ADA (42 U.S.C. 12101 et 

seq.).

 With respect to the comment seeking clarification on whether the 

inclusion of the term individual with disabilities in these regulations 

means that a student with a documented disability or individualized 

education program could participate in a TRIO project even if he or she

does not meet one of the other eligibility criteria, we note that--

except under the SSS program--being an individual with a disability is 

not a separate and additional eligibility criterion, such as being a 

first-generation or low-income student. Therefore, under all but SSS, 

being an individual with a disability does not, on its own, make an 

individual eligible to participate in a TRIO project. It is important 

to note that adopting the ADA's definition of an individual with a 

disability does not mean that grant funds under these programs may be 

used to pay for services required by the ADA that are not directly 

related to the goals of the TRIO programs. However, this prohibition 
would not relieve the institution of their obligations under the ADA or 

Section 504. For example, it would not be appropriate to use SSS 

program funds to pay for a sign language interpreter for a student who 

is hard of hearing to participate in his or her Calculus class as 

required by the ADA or Section 504.

 Changes: In Sec. Sec. 642.6, 643.7, 644.7, 645.6, and 646.7 of the 

final regulations, we define individual with a disability to mean a 

person with a disability, as that term is defined in section 12102 of 

the ADA (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).

Definition of Veteran (Sec. Sec. 643.7, 644.7, and 645.6)

 Comment: One commenter suggested that the proposed definition of 

veteran be modified to include National Guard veterans who served on 

active duty in Iraq and/or Afghanistan given that a large number of 

these individuals were called to duty in Iraq and Afghanistan and 

served for long tours of duty.

 Discussion: National Guard veterans who served on active duty in 

Iraq and/or Afghanistan are included in the definition of veteran. 

These individuals qualify as veterans under the last two paragraphs of 

that definition (i.e., the individual was a member of a reserve 

component of the Armed Forces of the United States and was called to 

active duty for a period of more than 30 days, or the individual was a 

member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States 

who served on active duty in support of a contingency operation on or 

after September 11, 2011).

 Changes: None.

Evaluating Prior Experience--Outcome Criteria Definition of ``High 

Quality Service Delivery'' (Sec. Sec. 642.20(b), 643.20(a)(2)(i), 

644.20(a)(2)(i), 645.30(a)(2)(i), 646.20(a)(2)(i), 647.20(a)(2)(i))

 Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns about the proposed 

regulations that would provide that the Secretary would consider an 

applicant's prior experience of ``high quality service delivery'' in 

deciding which new grants to make. Some commenters recommended that the 

phrase ``high quality service delivery'' be defined to provide projects 

with clear expectations and performance standards. Other commenters 

stated that, because the phrase ``high quality service delivery'' is

[[Page 65718]]

not defined, it should not be included in the regulations. One 

commenter argued that because project performance data is strictly 

quantitative in nature, a determination of a grantee's quality of 

service cannot be made.

 Discussion: We disagree with the commenters' suggestion that the 

term ``high quality service delivery'' needs to be defined in the 

regulations. We also disagree that a grantee's quality of service 

cannot be determined based on project performance. As stated in section 

402A(f)(1) of the HEA and in these regulations, the determination of an 

applicant's prior experience of ``high quality service delivery'' will 

be based on the outcome criteria for the specific program. Therefore, a 

grantee that met or exceeded its approved project objectives for its 

expiring grant would be considered to have delivered high quality 

services. The Department will use data provided by the grantee in the 

APR, as well as audit findings, site visit reports, and any other 
information received by the Department to determine if the grantee met 

or exceeded these objectives.

 Changes: None.

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: In reviewing proposed Sec. Sec. 643.20(a)(2)(i), 

644.20(a)(2)(i), 645.30(a)(2)(i), 646.20(a)(2)(i), 647.20(a)(2)(i)), we 

determined that it would be clearer to have these sections refer to 

``outcome criteria'' rather than to ``criteria'' only. This change 

aligns the regulatory language more closely with section 402A(f) of the 

HEA, which refers to the specific outcome criteria to be used to 

determine an entity's prior experience (PE) points under the TS, UB, 

SSS, McNair, and EOC programs.

 Changes: We have amended Sec. Sec. 643.20(a)(2)(i), 

644.20(a)(2)(i), 645.30(a)(2)(i), 646.20(a)(2)(i), 647.20(a)(2)(i)) by 

adding the word ``outcome'' before the word ``criteria''.

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: Upon further review of Sec. Sec. 643.20(a)(2)(i), 

644.20(a)(2)(i), 645.30(a)(2)(i), 646.20(a)(2)(i), we determined that 

technical changes were needed in these sections. Because the HEA now 

permits entities to submit multiple applications to serve different 

populations, campuses, or both, it is important that the regulations 

clarify the conditions under which an entity may receive PE points for 

applications for new grants (depending on whether the new grant will 

serve the different populations, campuses, or both served under an 

expiring grant). The Department has revised these regulations to 

clarify that PE points are awarded only to the application for a new 

grant that proposes to continue to serve substantially the same 

populations and campuses that the applicant is serving under an 

expiring grant. Therefore, an entity will not receive PE points for (a) 

applications to serve different populations, even if the different 

populations are on the same campus as the population or populations 

served by the existing grant, or (b) applications to serve a different 

campus altogether.

 Changes: We have amended Sec. Sec. 643.20(a)(2)(i), 

644.20(a)(2)(i), 645.30(a)(2)(i), and 646.20(a)(2)(i) by replacing the 

word ``or'' after the words ``same populations'' with the word ``and.''

Incorrect Annual Performance Report (APR) Data (Sec. Sec. 

642.22(a)(3), 643.22(a)(3), 644.22(a)(3), 645.32(a)(3), 646.22(a)(3), 

647.22(a)(3))

 Comment: The Department received numerous comments on the proposed 

regulatory language that would permit the Secretary to adjust a PE 

score or decide not to award PE points if other information indicates 

that the APR data used to calculate the applicant's PE are incorrect. 

Several commenters requested that the regulations be revised to take 

into consideration projects that knowingly provide fraudulent 

information and those that act in good faith but inadvertently provide 

data containing errors, so that the Department does not penalize 

projects for honest mistakes. Several commenters stated that Department 

officials have acknowledged that numerous projects have made data 

errors in their APRs, and these commenters believe that it is in the 

best interest of the Department and the projects to work to correct 

these errors, rather than not to award PE points to these projects.

 Discussion: We understand the commenters' concern about data 

reporting errors potentially resulting in the loss of PE points for an 

applicant. The Department does not intend to use this authority to 
penalize applicants that make reporting errors despite their ``good 

faith'' efforts. However, because the Department cannot always tell 

whether an applicant intentionally provides false data or if the 

applicant made a mistake in data reporting, we believe it is 

appropriate for the Department to have the flexibility to address 

issues of concern in audit findings, site visits, or other information 

that identifies problems in a grantee's efforts to meet the established 

objectives on a case-by-case basis. For this reason, we decline to make 

any changes to the regulations to distinguish between projects that 

knowingly provide fraudulent information and those that act in good 

faith but inadvertently provide data containing errors.

 Changes: None.

Notification of PE Points Awarded (Sec. Sec. 642.22, 643.22, 644.22, 

645.32, 646.22, 647.22)

 Comment: Many commenters requested that the Department notify 

grantees of their PE points earned each project year within a certain 

amount of time (e.g., 60 to 90 days) after the end of the grant period. 

They also recommended that the Department provide relevant comments to 

grantees that score less than the maximum 15 PE points, to assist the 

grantees in improving their projects in future years.

 Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions on how to 

improve communication about project performance between the Department 

and grantees. The Department provides applicants with standardized 

objectives for the relevant TRIO program in the application materials 

for each TRIO competition. Applicants then must specify their 

performance targets, and grantees report on their progress in achieving 

approved objectives in their APR. At the conclusion of each 

competition, grantees receive a summary of the PE scoring by 

standardized objective for each of the three years assessed. Moreover, 

the APR for each program is designed so that grantees should be able to 

calculate their own annual PE scores. However, the Department will 

continue to perfect its assessment of PE and find ways to provide 

timely feedback to grantees on their projects' performance.

 Changes: None.

PE Points for Financial and Economic Literacy (Sec. Sec. 642.22, 

643.22, 644.22, 645.32, 646.22, 647.22)

 Comment: The Department received several comments recommending that 

PE points be granted for experience providing services to improve 

participants' financial and economic literacy as well as financial aid 

application support. Some commenters offered this recommendation for 

only a specific TRIO program. These commenters argued that services 

related to financial and economic literacy and financial aid support 

are required by the HEA, have been incorporated into certain of the 

TRIO programs' purposes, and are pivotal to helping participants 

prepare for college. Some commenters also noted that it makes sense to 

provide PE points for these services, because project staff spend a 

substantial amount of time engaged in these services.

[[Page 65719]]

 Discussion: The Secretary acknowledges that the HEA emphasizes the 

importance of providing or connecting participants to services related 

to improving a participant's financial and economic literacy. However, 
the HEA does not list this activity as one of the outcome criteria to 

be used for PE points. To remain consistent with the statute, which 

requires that the Secretary determine an entity's prior experience 

based on the statutory outcome criteria, the Secretary is not adding PE 

criteria not included in section 402A(f) of the HEA.

 Changes: None.

Timeline for Earning PE Points--Postsecondary Completion (Sec. Sec. 

643.22(d)(6) (TS), 645.32(e)(1)(vi) and (e)(2)(v) (UB))

 Comment: Several commenters sought clarification on the timeframe 

in which UB and TS grantees will be eligible to earn the PE points 

associated with meeting their approved objectives for postsecondary 

degree completion, particularly if the criterion is evaluated after the 

second, third, and fourth program years, given the length of time it 

typically takes a student to complete a postsecondary degree. Some 

commenters requested an explanation of whether participants under an 

entity's expired or expiring grant may be counted toward meeting 

approved objectives for this criterion. One commenter recommended that 

grantees earn PE points for this criterion based on either 

postsecondary academic progress (persistence) or completion.

 Discussion: We understand the commenters' concern that applicants 

may not be eligible for all the PE points available for each 

competition, due to the amount of time it takes to track enrollment in 

and completion of postsecondary education of the participants served in 

the applicants' expired or expiring grants. Under the UB program, some 

applicants would be eligible to earn PE points for participants they 

served under earlier grants who attain a postsecondary degree within 

the number of years specified in the approved objective. Because the 

Department has been collecting individual participant data through the 

UB APRs for several years, the Department will be able to match 

participant data from prior years to determine the extent to which UB 

participants completed programs of postsecondary education.

 However, under the TS program, we have not been collecting data on 

the academic progress of TS participants through postsecondary 

completion as this is a new outcome criterion for this program. 

Therefore, the Department will not be able to match participant data 

from prior years to assess the extent to which TS participants 

completed programs of postsecondary education. Going forward, the 

Department will work with grantees to develop a new APR for the TS 

program that will capture the data needed to award PE points for 

postsecondary completion. The Department acknowledges that TS projects 

will not be eligible for the PE points for postsecondary completion for 

several years.

 Finally, we have not accepted the commenter's suggestion that we 

award PE points under the postsecondary completion criteria based on 

the extent to which project participants were either still persisting 

in or had completed a program of postsecondary education because the 

requirement of the HEA is postsecondary completion, not progress or 

completion.

 Changes: None.

Years Considered in PE Assessment (Sec. Sec. 643.20(a)(2)(iii), 

644.20(a)(2)(iii), 645.30(a)(2)(iii), 646.20(a)(2)(iii) 

647.20(a)(2)(iv))

 Comment: Multiple commenters expressed concern regarding the 
proposed regulation that would provide that the Secretary will 

designate in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and 

other published application materials for a competition which three 

years of the expiring five year grant period will be considered in the 

PE assessments for new awards. Several commenters stated that the 

regulations should specify which three years will be used, while a few 

others suggested clarifying that the middle three years (i.e., years 

two through four) of the grant cycle would be considered. These 

commenters contended that including this information in the regulations 

would reduce confusion among grantees as to the timeframe evaluated for 

purposes of determining PE points. One commenter recommended using data 

for the four years preceding the date of application for the new 

competition. This commenter noted that such an approach would be 

consistent with the Department's current system in which the average 

rates of achievement for the preceding three years are used. Similarly, 

other commenters had concerns that the proposed use of three years of 

project data will fail to take into consideration two project years' 

worth of a project's performance.

 Discussion: The HEA now provides that all TRIO grants will be 

awarded for five years, but the Secretary has determined that PE points 

should be assessed for only three of the five year project period. In 

making this determination, the Secretary took several factors into 

consideration. First, the Department's experience has demonstrated 

that, for a number of reasons, many first-time or new grantees do not 

meet their approved objectives for the first year of funding. Not using 

the first year of the grant cycle for PE points, therefore, will give 

new grantees time to effectively implement the project prior to having 

its performance evaluated for purposes of assessing PE. Second, 

evaluating performance from the last year of a project period to 

determine PE points for new awards presents a number of challenges. 

Applications for new grants are due about a year prior to the end of 

the current grant period and new awards are announced several months 

prior to the end of the grant period. Thus, it is not possible to 

consider a project's performance in the fifth year of an expiring grant 

prior to making funding decisions for the new grant competition because 

the APR data for the last year of the expiring grant would not be 

available for calculating PE points until several months after the new 

grant period begins.

 For these reasons, we do not think it is appropriate or possible to 

use the first and fifth years of the expiring grant cycle to assess PE 

points for new competitions. Generally, we expect that the published 

application materials will designate the three middle years of the 

expiring grant (i.e., project years two through four). However, 

designating the specific years to be considered in the application 

materials, rather than in the regulations, will give the Secretary 

flexibility to address unique situations on a competition-bycompetition basis. For example, there may be situations when some 

grantees started their expiring grant period a year or more later than 

other grantees. In such a situation, the applicant's performance during 

the first three years, instead of the middle three years, of the 

expiring grant would be used to award PE points. The published 

application materials would designate the project years that would be 

used for PE (e.g., 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10) for all applicants in 

the competition.

 Changes: None.
Use of Approved Versus Actual Number of Participants Served (Sec. Sec. 

645.32(d), 646.22(d), 647.22(d))

 Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about the proposal that 

the Secretary will use the approved number of participants, or the 

actual number of participants served in a given

[[Page 65720]]

year if that number of participants is greater than the approved 

number, as the denominator in calculating whether the applicant has met 

its approved objectives under its expiring grant to earn PE points for 

the new grant application. A few commenters argued that a grantee who 

does not serve the approved number of participants is penalized in two 

ways: First, by not receiving PE points for the criterion measuring 

whether the approved number was served, and, second, by not receiving 

any PE points at all if at least 90 percent of the approved number was 

not served. These commenters stated that using the approved number 

instead of actual number as the denominator in PE calculations is 

unnecessarily punitive. Furthermore, one commenter recommended that 

either the actual number of participants should be used as the 

denominator or the number of PE points associated with serving the 

approved number of participants should be reduced. This commenter 

argued that the number of points assigned to this criterion, combined 

with the proposed use of the approved number as the denominator, makes 

the penalty for projects that do not serve their approved number too 

severe. The commenter stated that this concern particularly applies to 

small projects, for which the commenter notes that one or two students 

can affect an objective by two or more percentage points.

 Discussion: Grant award amounts and performance targets are based 

largely on the number of participants a project is funded to serve each 

year of the grant period. Therefore, we believe that, for those PE 

criteria applicable to all participants served in the project year, the 

denominator should be the greater of the approved number of 

participants to be served or the actual number of participants served. 

PE points are rewards, and give projects a competitive advantage in a 

subsequent grant competition. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect a 

grantee to meet the performance targets it proposed and that were 

approved through the grant process to earn the maximum number of PE 

points. Therefore, we do not accept the commenters' suggestion not to 

use the approved number as the denominator for calculating PE points 

for some objectives or to reduce the PE points a project can earn for 

serving its approved number of participants.

 Changes: None.

PE Criterion Related to Number of Participants (Sec. Sec. 642.22(d) 

and (e)(1); 643.22(c) and (d)(1); 644.22(c) and (d)(1); 645.32(c), 

(e)(1)(i), and (e)(2)(i)); 646.22(c) and (e)(1); 647.22(c) and (e)(1))

 Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the phrase 

``approved number of participants'' in the proposed regulations means 

that a grantee would not receive PE points if the project served more 

than their approved number of participants. These commenters argued 

that it is difficult to ensure that a project only serves the exact 

number of participants that were proposed, as projects often accept 

more participants than they are funded to serve to ensure that at least 

the minimum number is met throughout the year. Two commenters further 
noted that the phrase ``met or exceeded the entity's objectives'' is 

used in several areas of the HEOA, suggesting that the spirit of the 

law is for projects to serve at least the funded number. Several 

commenters requested that the criterion be revised to reflect that the 

Department will examine whether the applicant provided services to ``at 

least the approved number of participants'' or to ``no less than the 

approved number of participants.''

 One commenter suggested that PE points for serving the approved 

number of participants should be commensurate with the percentage of 

the approved number that was served. Two commenters suggested that the 

regulatory provision that states that the Secretary does not award PE 

points to a grantee that does not serve at least 90 percent of the 

approved number of participants conflicts with the separate regulatory 

provision that states that the Secretary does not award PE points for 

the criterion measuring whether the grantee served the approved number 

if the approved number is not served.

 Discussion: The Department agrees that the use of the words 

``approved number'' in the ``Number of participants'' PE criterion 

regulations may be confusing. We did not intend for this provision to 

imply that a project could not serve more than the approved number of 

participants. Therefore, we have accepted the commenters' 

recommendations to revise the regulatory language to make it clear that 

a project can serve more than the approved number of participants.

 We note, however, that for a grantee to receive PE points for this 

criterion, the project must meet or exceed the approved number that it 

has been funded to serve; no partial credit will be given for this 

criterion to a grantee that served fewer than the approved number.

 The commenters' concern that the PE criteria conflict with each 

other is based on a misunderstanding. The two criteria are 

complementary. First, to be eligible to receive any PE points for a 

given year, a grantee must have served at least 90 percent of the 

participants it was funded to serve. For example, if a project was 

funded to serve 100 participants but only served 85 participants (85 

percent of the approved number), the grantee would receive no PE points 

for that project year because it did not serve at least 90 percent of 

its funded number. Second, if a grantee serves at least 90 percent of 

the number of participants it was funded to serve but did not serve 100 

percent of the approved number of participants (e.g., project was 

funded to serve 100 participants but only served 98 participants), the 

grantee would not receive any points for the ``Number of participants'' 

criterion. However, the grantee would be eligible to earn up to 12 PE 

points based on whether or not the project achieved its other PE 

objectives.

 Changes: We have amended Sec. Sec. 642.22(d); 643.22(c); 

644.22(c); 645.32(c); 646.22(c); 647.22(c)) to clarify that the 

Secretary does not award PE points if the applicant did not serve at 

least the approved number of participants. In addition, we have amended 

the Number of participants criterion in Sec. Sec. 642.22(e)(1), 

643.22(d)(1), 644.22(d)(1), 645.32 (e)(1)(i) and (e)(2)(i); 

646.22(e)(1); and 647.22(e)(1) to clarify that the award of PE points 

for that criterion is based on whether the applicant provided services 

to no less than the approved number of participants.

Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants 

Percentage of Funds Set Aside for Secondary Review Competition 

(Sec. Sec. 642.25(d) (Training), 643.24(d) (TS), 644.24(d) (EOC), 

645.35(d) (UB), 646.24(d) (SSS), and 647.24(d) (McNair))
 Comment: Several commenters requested clarification of some of the 

procedures and processes proposed for the second review of unsuccessful 

grant applications. Several commenters wanted to know the percentage of 

competition funds that would be reserved for the second review or how 

the Department would determine the percentage of funds set aside for 

grants after the second review. Commenters also expressed concern that 

some of the funds reserved for awards after the second review might not 

be awarded and recommended that the regulations

[[Page 65721]]

be modified to allow for and explain the equitable disbursement of 

unused reserved funds.

 Discussion: To implement the new statutory requirement that 

unsuccessful applicants may request a second review of their 

applications under certain conditions, the Department proposed and, 

through these final regulations, adopts a two-slate process. After the 

peer review of applications and the awarding of PE points, as 

applicable, the Department will rank all the applications. The 

Department then will establish a funding band to determine the 

percentage of the total funds allotted for the competition that will be 

set aside for the second review (for example, we might set aside six 

percent of the total funds allotted for the competition). The 

determination of the percentage of funds to be reserved for the second 

review and the applications to be included in the funding band will be 

based on the distribution of application scores. For example, we expect 

to include in the funding band all applications that scored within two 

or three points below the initial cut-off score.

 The funding band for each competition will include all of the 

applications with a rank-order score that is below the lowest score of 

applications funded after the first review and that would be funded if 

the Secretary had 150 percent of the funds that were set aside for the 

second review (e.g. nine percent of funds).

 The first slate of new awards will be made based on the rank-order 

of the applications using the amount of funds available for the 

competition minus the amount of funds set aside for the second review 

of unsuccessful applications (e.g., six percent).

 Only those unsuccessful applicants whose applications scored within 

the funding band will be eligible for the second review. In addition, 

those applicants eligible for the second review will have to provide 

evidence demonstrating that the Department, an agent of the Department, 

or a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error (as defined 

in the regulations) in the review of its application.

 If the Department determines that there was an administrative error 

in the review of an application (which includes mathematical errors in 

the calculation of PE points or assigning the earned PE points or the 

peer reviewers' scores to the wrong application) the Department will 

correct the error and adjust the score assigned to the application as 

appropriate. If the adjusted score assigned to the application would 

place the application above the cut-off score for funding under the 

first slate, the application will be funded (if funds are available) 

prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review 

of unsuccessful applications.

 If there is an error in how the peer reviewers scored an 

application (see Sec. Sec. 642.25(b)(3) (Training); 643.24(b)(3) (TS); 

644.24(b)(3) (EOC); 645.35(b)(3) (UB); 646.24(b)(3) (SSS); and 
647.24(b)(3) (McNair)), a second peer review panel will review the 

application. After all of the second reviews are completed, a second 

rank-order slate of applications in the funding band will be prepared. 

The rankings in the second slate will be based on the new reviewers' 

score for those applications that were read by a second peer review 

panel; any applicant in the funding band that did not request or 

receive a second review will be ranked based on its original score. 

Applications in the funding band will be funded based on the second 

rank order slate until all the available funds are committed.

 The decision to use a funding band and the specific parameters for 

the funding band are based on the Department's experience. In the past, 

adjustments for administrative and scoring errors have resulted in a 

score increase of no more than two or three points; therefore, under 

these regulations, the funding band will include only those 

applications that have a reasonable chance of being funded if the 

second review of the application resulted in an adjustment to the 

score. By selecting those applications with an original score that is 

most likely to have a chance of being funded after a second review, the 

Department will be better able to effectively manage the grant 

competition and make timely funding decisions.

 The funding band approach to the second review process ensures that 

eligible applicants have a meaningful opportunity to request a second 

review while ensuring that the Department can provide timely notice of 

grant awards.

 It is important to note that not every application selected for 

inclusion in the funding band will be awarded a grant. As discussed 

elsewhere in this preamble, we will put aside an appropriate amount of 

funds for grants awarded after the second review, but those funds will 

not be sufficient to provide funding for all applicants in the funding 

band. However, this process will ensure that we obligate all of the 

funds available for new grants and that there is no lapse of funds.

 Changes: None.

Number of Days To Prepare and Submit a Written Request for a Second 

Review (Sec. Sec. 642.25(c)(5) and (6)(Training), 643.24(c)(5) and 

(c)(6)(TS), 644.24(c)(5) and (c)(6) (EOC), 645.35(c)(5) and (c)(6) 

(UB), 646.24(c)(5) and (c)(6) (SSS), and 647.24(c)(5) and (c)(6) 

(McNair))

 Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department revise 

the proposed regulations by increasing the 15 calendar days to prepare 

a written request for a second review to 30 to 45 calendar days. These 

commenters stated that 15 days is not enough time for unsuccessful 

applicants to receive and review the reader's evaluations and prepare 

an appropriate request for a secondary review to the Department. Five 

commenters expressed concern that the amount of time it takes to 

deliver and receive mail, especially for applicants in the Pacific, 

would reduce the amount of time applicants would have to respond and 

request a secondary review. Other commenters gave examples of 

circumstances that could interfere with an applicant's ability to 

respond within the proposed 15 day period, such as the need to get 

appropriate signatures, delays resulting from the institution being 

closed for vacations or furloughed days, or delays in getting the peer 

reviewers' comments and the assessments of PE points. Another commenter 

suggested that the Department provide a grantee with its PE score 

annually to provide more time in which to do the research needed to 

appeal the assigned PE score. One commenter also noted that the 
regulations seemed contradictory in providing that the applicant will 

have 15 calendar days to submit a written request but then also stating 

that the written request for a second review must be received by the 

Department by the due date and time established by the Secretary.

 Discussion: We understand the time constraints institutions may 

face in submitting their request for a second review and supporting 

information in a timely manner. However, the statutory requirement for 

a second review process adds several new steps to the competition 

schedule. Consequently, we must compress many stages of the competition 

to incorporate these new procedures into the competition schedule so 

that we meet our legal obligation to commit all appropriated funds by 

the end of the fiscal year.

 The Department will establish internal procedures to ensure that 

applicants in the funding band receive at least 15 days after receiving 

notification that their applications were not funded in which to submit 

a written

[[Page 65722]]

request for a second review. At the time of notification, these 

applicants will receive copies of the peer reviewers' written 

evaluations and, if applicable, a report detailing how the PE score was 

calculated. We will use multiple notification methods (e.g., electronic 

mail, overnight mail) to ensure applicants will have at least 15 days 

from receipt of the notification in which to respond. Applicants will 

also be permitted to submit their responses electronically. Further, 

our Web site will provide applicants with updated information as to 

when funding decisions might be announced and the proposed schedule for 

the second review so applicants can ensure that staff are available to 

prepare a request for a second review, if appropriate.

 In establishing a due date and time for receipt of the applicant's 

written request for a second review, the Department will give 

applicants at least 15 days in which to respond.

 Changes: We have amended Sec. Sec. 642.25(c)(5), 643.24(c)(5), 

644.24(c)(5), 645.35(c)(5), 646.24(c)(5), and 647.24(c)(5) to clarify 

that unsuccessful applicants who are within the funding band will have 

at least 15 calendar days in which to submit a written request for a 

second review.

Technical or Administrative Errors (Sec. Sec. 642.25(a)(3) (Training), 

643.24(a)(3) (TS), 644.24(a)(3) (EOC), 645.35(a)(3) (UB), 

646.24(a)(3)(SSS), and 647.24(a)(3) (McNair))

 Comment: Three commenters suggested that if a technical or 

administrative error by the Department or a peer reviewer results in an 

application not being reviewed, the applicant should automatically 

receive a grant even if program funds are not available.

 Discussion: We cannot accept the suggestion made by the commenters.

If correcting a technical or administrative error results in the 

application receiving a score above the cut-off score for funding under 

the first slate, the application would be funded prior to the reranking of applications based on the second peer review of unsuccessful 

applications. Therefore, we do not anticipate a situation in which 

funds would not be available to fund these applications. However, we do 

not have the legal authority to commit funds that we do not have and 

the regulations must include the statement ``provided funds are 

available''.
 Changes: None.

Criteria for Scoring Errors on Applications That Were Reviewed 

(Sec. Sec. 642.25(b)(3) (Training), 643.24(b)(3) (TS), 644.24(b)(3) 

(EOC), 645.35(b)(3) (UB), 646.24(b)(3)(SSS), and 647.24(b)(3) (McNair))

 Comment: One commenter argued that the criteria proposed in the 

regulations for demonstrating scoring errors in the evaluation of the 

application are too narrow and should include other criteria that take 

into account possibilities such as human error on the part of the 

reader. Another commenter asserted that the reader's professional 

judgment should be considered as a type of scoring error in determining 

whether or not an application is eligible for a secondary review. This 

commenter expressed the opinion that readers do not have the 

appropriate knowledge to adequately judge whether or not an applicant 

can meet the objectives set forth in the application. Another commenter 

was concerned about readers who may misread or misinterpret information 

provided in the application.

 Discussion: We do not agree with these comments. We believe that 

the regulations appropriately define the type of error that should be 

considered a technical, administrative or scoring error and would 

warrant a second review of an application. We disagree with the 

suggestion that the professional judgment of the peer reviewers should 

be subject to review as a scoring error. The HEA requires that each 

application be reviewed by a panel of non-Federal peer reviewers. These 

experts have programmatic knowledge and experience in serving lowincome, first-generation students and in administering student 

assistance programs. As required by Congress, we rely on their 

expertise to make judgments about the quality of the applications under 

review. The readers appropriately exercise their judgment in providing 

scores on the applications and a low score is not evidence of an error 

by the reviewer. We also do not agree that the reader's interpretation 

of an application should be a basis for review. It is the applicant's 

responsibility to make sure the information provided in the application 

is clear and understandable.

 Changes: None.

Timely Notification of Applications Determined To Be Ineligible Because 

of a Technical or Administrative Error (Sec. Sec. 642.25(a) 

(Training), 643.24(a) (TS), 644.24(a) (EOC), 645.35(a) (UB), 646.24(a) 

(SSS), and 647.24(a) (McNair))

 Comment: One commenter asserted that the regulations should require 

the Secretary to provide timely notification to an applicant whose 

application was not reviewed because it was determined to be 

ineligible, so that the applicant would have sufficient time to appeal

the decision prior to the conduct of the peer review process.

 Discussion: To the extent feasible, the Department notifies 

applicants who were determined to be ineligible in writing prior to the 

start of the peer review of applications or as soon as possible 

thereafter. Under these regulations, if it is determined that the 

Department or the Department's agent made a technical or administrative 

error, as defined in the regulations, in making that determination the 

application will be evaluated and scored. If the total score assigned 

the application would have resulted in the funding of the application 

during the competition and the program has funds available, the 

application will be funded prior to the re-ranking and funding of 
applications after the second review.

 Changes: None.

Final Decision (Sec. Sec. 642.25(e) (Training), 643.24(e) (TS), 

644.24(e) (EOC), 645.35(e) (UB), 646.24(e) (SSS), and 647.24(e) 

(McNair))

 Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that scoring errors also 

could occur during the secondary review process. For this reason, the 

commenters suggested that applicants be allowed to appeal the decision 

of the secondary review process.

 Discussion: The Secretary disagrees with the suggestion that an 

applicant should be permitted to appeal the decision of the secondary 

review process. The second review provides a formal process for 

addressing scoring errors made during the first review that might 

impact the funding of an application. Appealing the decision of the 

second review is beyond the requirements of the statute and would 

interfere with the timely awarding of grants under the competition.

 Changes: None.

Eliminate the Second Review (Sec. Sec. 642.25 (Training), 643.24 (TS), 

644.24 (EOC), 645.35 (UB), 646.24 (SSS), and 647.24 (McNair))

 Comment: One commenter requested that we remove from the 

regulations the

[[Page 65723]]

entire section on the review process for unsuccessful applicants 

because it would increase the Department's administrative burden and 

would increase administrative costs, resulting in fewer projects being 

funded and fewer students being served.

 Discussion: The HEA requires the creation of the second review 

process for unsuccessful applications. The Department does not have the 

authority to eliminate this statutorily required process.

 Changes: None.

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs (34 CFR part 642) What is 

the Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs? (Sec. 642.1)

 Comment: One commenter expressed concern that it is difficult for 

Training Program grantees to meet the minimum requirements for the 

number of TRIO professionals that they must train. The commenter 

suggested making awards in a way that allows grantees to structure 

training sessions to be more focused, such as training for specific 

programs (e.g., for only Upward Bound staff or Talent Search staff), 

only new directors or staff, or only seasoned staff, to reduce the 

competition among grantees for the same audiences. In addition, the 

commenter urged the Department to ensure that TRIO professionals are 

able to take advantage of training opportunities by requiring directors 

to send staff to the trainings.

 Discussion: Section 402G(b) of the HEA requires Training Program 

grantees to offer training annually for new directors of TRIO projects 

as well as annual training on topics specified in the statute and other 

topics chosen by the Secretary. If grantees are offering training to 

the same audiences and are unable to attract appropriate numbers of 

participants, rather than changing the requirements on the number of 
project staff a Training grant must serve, the Secretary may consider 

reducing the number of grants available under this program while still 

ensuring that training is available throughout the Nation. Although the 

Secretary hopes that TRIO professionals will be able to take advantage 

of these training opportunities, the Secretary does not want to require 

their participation. It is the responsibility of each TRIO director to 

determine which staff could benefit from the offered training and how 

much of the project budget should be used for this purpose and to make 

decisions about staff participation in trainings under the TRIO 

Training program accordingly.

 Changes: None.

What activities does the Secretary assist? (Sec. 642.11)

 Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department remove the 

requirement that Training Program projects offer training covering 

strategies for recruiting and serving hard-to-reach populations, as 

reflected in Sec. 642.11(b)(5). The commenter maintained that it does 

not make sense to include this requirement because some of the TRIO 

programs, such as McNair and Upward Bound Math-Science (UBMS), are not 

required to serve these populations. The commenter suggested that the 

Department make this a permissible training topic that could be 

combined with other topics.

 Discussion: In section 402G(b)(5) of the HEA, as amended by section 

403(g) of the HEOA, Congress added training on strategies for 

recruiting and serving hard to reach populations to the list of 

required training that must be offered annually. Therefore, we do not 

have the authority to remove this requirement or to make it a 

permissive topic. The Federal Register notice inviting applications 

will provide applicants with additional guidance regarding the types of 

TRIO staff that should be offered training on this topic.

 Changes: None.

How does the Secretary evaluate an application for a new award? (Sec. 

642.20)

 Comment: One commenter suggested that, in making awards under the 

Training Program, the Department should take into consideration the 

diversity of training topics and the opportunities for TRIO 

professionals to attend training. The commenter also suggested that the 

Secretary make only one award for each major training topic to ensure 

that comprehensive training is available for TRIO staff.

 Discussion: For each competition for grants under the Training 

Program, the notice inviting applications will identify the training 

priorities (from the list of priorities in Sec. 642.24) for the 

competition and the expected number of Training projects to be funded 

under each priority. Under section 402G(b) of the HEA, training must be 

offered each year for new project directors and for each of the topics 

listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of that section and in Sec. 

642.11. The required topics provide the appropriate diversity and 

opportunities for training.

 Changes: None.

What are the Secretary's priorities for funding? (Sec. Sec. 642.7 and 

642.24)

 Comment: None.
 Discussion: Upon further departmental review of Sec. 642.7 and 

newly redesignated Sec. 642.24, we have determined that the provisions 

should be clearer with regard to the implementation of the Secretary's 

authority to select and designate training priorities. Proposed Sec. 

642.7 stated that an applicant may submit more than one application for 

Training grants as long as each application described a project that 

addresses a different absolute priority designated in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications. The absolute priorities are from 

the list of training priorities in newly redesignated Sec. 642.24. We 

have made a change to Sec. 642.24 to make this clearer. In addition, 

while Sec. 642.7 states that the Secretary designates the absolute 

priorities in the Federal Register notice inviting applications, newly 

redesignated Sec. 642.24, as proposed, did not include corresponding 

language. For the sake of clarity, therefore, we have added language to 

Sec. 642.24 that states that the Secretary designates one or more of 

the priorities in Sec. 642.24 in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for the competition.

 Changes: We have added language to Sec. 642.7 to clarify that the 

absolute priorities designated in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications are from the list of training priorities in Sec. 642.24. 

We also have added paragraph (c) to newly redesignated Sec. 642.24 to 

clarify that, for each competition, the Secretary designates one or 

more training priorities in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications.

 Comment: Multiple commenters advocated expanding the Secretary's 

list of priorities for the Training Program to include additional 

priorities, such as the provision of counseling services designed to 

improve financial and economic literacy. The commenters argued that 

additional priorities should be included as priorities in Sec. 642.24 

to reflect the emphasis on these activities in the HEA.

 Discussion: Section 642.11(b) reflects the list of training topics 

required by section 402G(b) of the HEA. Section 642.24 reflects the 

Secretary's statutory authority to designate--in a notice inviting 

applications for a competition--one or more subjects as training 

priorities for grantees. In exercising the authority provided in Sec. 

642.24, the Secretary may consider the priorities suggested by the 

commenters for future competitions.

 Changes: None.

Talent Search (TS) Program (34 CFR Part 643)

 The Secretary has changed the current TS Program regulations to 

implement

[[Page 65724]]

the changes made to the program by sections 403(a) and (b) of the HEOA. 

The HEOA made changes to the goals and purposes of the TS program 

through the addition of statutory outcome criteria and required 

activities. These HEOA changes require TS grantees to provide more 

intensive academic interventions than they have in the past.

 As we discuss subsequently under the applicable sections of the 

regulations, the Department received many comments and questions about 

the new TS program requirements, particularly with regard to the 

requirements relating to a rigorous secondary school program of study. 

Numerous commenters expressed concerns that funding levels would be 

insufficient to provide the required services and activities to the 
number of students currently being served and recommended that, if 

additional funding were not available for TS, grantees should be 

permitted to reduce the number of students to be served. Some 

commenters suggested that the proposed regulations would require 

grantees to implement a two-tiered program of service delivery--the 

first tier would support participants completing a rigorous curriculum 

and the second tier would provide college preparatory education for 

those participants not taking a rigorous secondary school program of 

study.

 The Department also received comments requesting additional 

guidance regarding the Department's expectations for the cost-effective 

delivery of services for students in a rigorous program of study.

 As discussed in the NPRM, in light of the changes made to the HEA, 

the Department has removed from the regulations the requirement that a 

TS grantee must serve a specific minimum number of participants. 

Instead, the Secretary will identify the minimum number of participants 

a TS grantee must serve each year of a grant cycle in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications for the grant competition. This 

approach will give the Department the flexibility to establish the 

minimum number of participants to be served based on the available 

resources and other priorities for each competition, and to adjust 

these numbers for subsequent competitions based on experience, changing 

priorities, and cost analyses.

 Further, the Department acknowledges that some of the proposed 

regulations with regard to the rigorous program of study would impose a 

significant burden on grantees and could not be fully implemented 

without substantial increases in program funding or large reductions in 

the number of participants served. Therefore, as discussed in more 

detail in the following sections, we have revised many of the proposed 

regulations related to the rigorous program of study. For example, 

instead of requiring TS grantees to provide many of the services a 

participant may need to complete a rigorous program of study, the 

Department is encouraging all TS projects to work in a coordinated, 

collaborative, and cost-effective manner with the target schools or 

school system and other programs for disadvantaged students to provide 

TS participants with access to and assistance in completing a rigorous 

secondary school program of study.

 The Department also plans to provide additional guidance to 

applicants on how to respond to the new program requirements and 

outcome criteria in the published application materials. In addition, 

the Department will conduct 10 pre-application workshops to assist 

persons interested in applying for TS grants and will post a list of 

frequently asked questions on the TRIO Programs Web site at: http://

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html.

What is the Talent Search program? (Sec. 643.1)

 Comment: Several commenters expressed dissatisfaction with the 

language that the Secretary proposed to add to this section. The 

commenters expressed concern that it appeared that the TS program is no 

longer focused on its historically targeted audiences of middle and 

high school students because TS projects are now expected to also 

``encourage'' persons who have not completed postsecondary education to 

``complete such programs.'' The commenters argued that working with 

persons to complete a program of postsecondary education is beyond the 

scope of the TS program.

 Discussion: We do not have the discretion to make the changes 
suggested by the commenters because the regulatory language at issue is 

required by section 402B(a)(3) of the HEA.

 Changes: None.

Who is eligible for a grant? (Sec. 643.2)

 Comment: Many commenters questioned the practicality or need to 

include secondary schools and community-based organizations as eligible 

grantees for the TS program and suggested that the regulations be 

modified to exclude these entities from being eligible applicants.

 Discussion: We cannot make the changes required by the commenters. 

Congress amended section 402A(b)(1) of the HEA to eliminate the 

limitation on the eligibility of secondary schools and to include 

community-based organizations in the definition of public and private 

agencies that are eligible for the TS program.

 Changes: None.

Who is eligible to participate in a project? (Sec. 643.3)

 Comment: Several commenters recommended that the regulations retain 

the requirement, reflected in current Sec. 643.3(a)(3)(ii) that a 

participant have the ability to complete a program of postsecondary 

education. Some commenters requested that the participant eligibility 

requirements concerning individuals receiving support to complete a 

rigorous secondary school program of study be removed from Sec. 

643.3(b). A majority of the comments on Sec. 643.3 concerned the 

requirement that an individual is eligible to receive support to 

complete a rigorous secondary school program of study only if the 

individual is accepted into the TS program by the end of the first term 

of the tenth grade. Some of these commenters recommended that this 

provision be changed to allow individuals who are accepted into the TS 

program by the end of the 10th grade academic year. Another one of 

these commenters suggested that identifying students for a rigorous 

secondary school program of study in the 9th grade presents a challenge 

due to the mobility and attrition issues that TS projects encounter, 

which make it difficult to identify a cohort of students to follow for 

four years. This commenter noted that projects in rural States, in 

particular, have these challenges because the number of schools in 

which services can be provided would be small. The commenter suggested 

that we amend the regulations to identify an overall percentage of the 

total number of high school students served by a project who will 

complete a rigorous secondary school program of study by the end of 

their senior year. Other commenters also stated that this provision was 

too restrictive and recommended that TS projects be given more 

flexibility to recruit, select, and provide additional services for 

students among all grade levels. Some commenters argued that using TS 

funds for a rigorous secondary school program of study is a misplaced 

priority and that funds would be better utilized providing services 

aimed at the 6th through 8th grade population.

 Discussion: We have not accepted the commenters' recommendation 

with regard to retaining Sec. 643.3(a)(3)(ii) because we amended this 

provision to comply with the changes made by

[[Page 65725]]

section 403(b)(1)(B) of the HEOA to section 402B(a)(3) of the HEA.

 However, in response to other comments, we have decided not to 
include in these final regulations the participant eligibility 

requirements for the rigorous secondary school program of study that 

were reflected in proposed Sec. 643.3(b). We have been convinced by 

the commenters that this provision would have imposed a significant 

burden on grantees by adding additional participant eligibility 

criteria for those participants needing assistance in completing a 

rigorous secondary school program of study. Also, after considering the 

comments, we have decided that TS projects should encourage all 

participants, not just those in high school, to undertake a rigorous 

secondary school program of study and should coordinate and collaborate 

with the target schools or school system and other programs for 

disadvantaged students to provide all TS participants with access to 

and assistance in completing a rigorous secondary school program of 

study.

 In response to the comment that using TS funds for a rigorous 

secondary school program of study is a misplaced priority and that 

funds would be better utilized providing services aimed at the 6th 

through 8th grade population, we note that section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of 

the HEA now requires TS grantees to assist participants in completing a 

rigorous program of study; therefore, we require this assistance in the 

regulations. However, these final regulations reflect changes we have 

made to the proposed regulations that should help reduce the costs to 

the TS project of providing these services. Encouraging participants to 

pursue a rigorous program of study should be part of the services a TS 

project provides to participants in the 6th through 8th grades.

 Changes: We have amended the regulations by removing proposed Sec. 

643.3(b). As a result, current Sec. 643.3(b), which would have been 

redesignated as Sec. 643.3(c), remains unchanged as Sec. 643.3(b) in 

these final regulations.

What services does a project provide? (Sec. 643.4)

 Comment: The majority of individuals who commented on Sec. 643.4 

suggested that the required services listed in Sec. 643.4(a) were too 

burdensome, time intensive, cost prohibitive, or impractical for TS 

grantees and should be eliminated. One commenter suggested that these 

services should be allowable but not required. One commenter requested 

that we revise section Sec. 643.4(b) to clarify that grantees may 

provide additional activities that are not included in the list of 

permissible services from the TRIO statute provided that these 

activities meet the goals of the TS program.

 Discussion: Section 643.4(a) includes the list of ``Required 

Services'' for a TS project, as mandated by section 402B(b) of the HEA. 

We do not have the discretion to eliminate these required services or 

to make them permissible. However, a grantee may provide the required 

services itself or through linkages with other organizations. Moreover, 

while a grantee must make all of the required services listed in Sec. 

643.4(a) available to its participants, not all TS participants may 

need all of the services or may choose not to take advantage of them. 

We did not intend for the regulations to prohibit grantees from 

offering additional services to meet the goals of the program; grantees 

may offer additional services not explicitly mentioned as required or 

permissible. Therefore, we have revised Sec. 643.4(b) to reflect that 

intent more clearly.

 Changes: We have revised Sec. 643.4(b) by adding paragraph (b)(8), 

which clarifies that a TS project may provide services other than those 

specified in Sec. 643.4(b)(1) through (b)(7) that are designed to meet 
the purposes of the TS program.

What definitions apply? (Sec. 643.7)

Regular Secondary School Diploma

 Comment: Several commenters suggested that the definition for the 

term regular secondary school diploma be removed from the TS 

regulations because the assumption would otherwise be that any 

secondary school diploma would be a regular diploma. Many commenters 

asked what criteria the Secretary will use to determine whether a 

diploma constitutes a regular secondary school diploma under this 

definition. Other commenters suggested that we revise Sec. 643.7 to 

define the term regular secondary school diploma with more specificity. 

Several commenters indicated that beginning in 2014 a ``regular'' 

diploma within their State will be the same as a diploma for completing 

the State's rigorous secondary school program of study.

 In addition, several commenters requested that the definition for 

the term regular secondary school diploma be revised to include a 

timeline for the ``standard number of years'' in which participants 

would complete secondary school. A number of the commenters suggested 

that there was some confusion as to whether the phrase ``standard 

number of years,'' as used in Sec. Sec. 643.21(a)(3) (selection 

criteria) and 643.22(d)(3) (criteria for calculating PE points) would 

be considered to end at the conclusion of the academic year or at the 

conclusion of a summer session. The commenters indicated that this 

difference would be significant due to the fact that some States 

require exit examinations. In these States, if a student does not 

graduate at the end of the academic year, he or she still has the 

opportunity to pass the examination during the summer. These commenters 

argued, therefore, that if the meaning of the phrase ``standard number 

of years'' includes the summer period, a project would be able to 

include as graduates those students who pass the examination in the 

summer. The commenters asked the Department to revise the definition of 

regular secondary school diploma to clarify whether to meet this 

definition a diploma must be obtained within the academic year.

 Discussion: Because we recognize that State policies concerning the 

requirement for a regular secondary school diploma may differ, we 

proposed a regulatory definition for this term that is broad enough to 

encompass varying requirements for a regular secondary school diploma. 

We do not agree with the commenters' suggestion that this definition be 

removed; we believe that the definition clarifies for grantees that 

their respective State standards should be used to determine whether a 

participant has attained a regular secondary school diploma.

 With regard to the comments concerning the meaning of the phrase 

``standard number of years,'' we acknowledge that there are a variety 

of State policies concerning graduation requirements, including exit 

examinations. We also appreciate that some States may not define what 

timeframe constitutes a ``standard number of years'' for high school 

graduation with a regular secondary school diploma; and, therefore, we 

should establish a consistent point of measurement for determining a 

grantee's performance under the outcome criterion for high school 

graduation with a regular secondary school diploma. The National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES) generally measures ``on time'' high 

school graduation (i.e., graduating within the standard number of 

years) as receiving a regular diploma within four years of entering 

ninth grade, which is consistent with the general approach to 
measurement and with high school graduation rates determined under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).

[[Page 65726]]

 The Department interprets the standard number of years for high 

school graduation with a regular secondary school diploma generally to 

be one grade per year from the beginning of high school, which is 

usually ninth grade. Further, consistent with the ESEA regulations, in 

34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(iii), a student who passes the exit examinations 

for a regular high school diploma during the summer after the senior 

year would be considered to have graduated within the standard number 

of years. Finally, a student who graduates prior to the conclusion of a 

student's fourth (or final) year of high school would also be 

considered to have graduated within the standard number of years.

 Changes: None.

Definition of Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study

 Comment: Several commenters suggested that a dual enrollment 

program should be considered as meeting the TS definition of a rigorous 

secondary school program of study. The commenters also recommended that 

this definition be revised to include as a rigorous secondary school 

program of study a secondary school program in which a student 

completed at least two dual enrollment courses for which the student 

received a grade of ``B-'' or better and college credit. Another 

commenter suggested adding to the type of rigorous secondary school 

program of study described in paragraph (3)(iii) of the definition the 

requirement that students must successfully complete, at minimum, 

courses in Anatomy/Physiology, Physical Science, and Environmental 

Science. Another commenter asked whether the language in paragraph (3) 

of the definition that provides that a rigorous secondary school 

program of study include one year of a language other than English 

would be satisfied by computer science coursework.

 Several commenters asked whether the types of programs described in 

paragraphs (3) and (4) of the definition of rigorous secondary school 

program of study are redundant. The commenters stated that the State 

Scholars Initiative of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher 

Education (WICHE) requires the same coursework as that listed in the 

type of program described in paragraph (3) of the definition.

 Therefore, under the WICHE standards, any student who completes a 

rigorous secondary school program of study under paragraph (4) of the 

definition would also have completed a rigorous secondary school 

program of study that satisfies paragraph (3) of the definition. 

Several commenters suggested that the definition of a rigorous 

secondary school program of study be amended to provide a common single 

definition instead of including several types of programs that meet 

this definition, so grant applications can be judged and scored using a 

common definition. Other commenters indicated that they believed that 

the presentation of the six types of programs that would meet the 

definition of a rigorous secondary school program of study suggests 

that an individual program of study would have to meet all six options 

to meet the definition. They suggested that the definition be clarified 

by including the word ``or'' after each of the first five paragraphs. 

Another commenter suggested that the Department add the words ``one of 

the following'' to the definition to clarify that any one of the listed 

options meets the definition of rigorous secondary school program of 
study.

 Discussion: The Secretary disagrees with the commenters who 

suggested that completion of either a dual enrollment program or a 

secondary school program that includes two dual enrollment courses with 

a grade of B- or better should qualify as a rigorous secondary school 

program of study. We do not believe all dual enrollment programs or 

courses are rigorous enough to support either of these approaches. Of 

course, a dual enrollment program or secondary school program that 

includes dual enrollment courses that otherwise meets one of the 

criteria in the definition in the regulations would qualify as a 

rigorous secondary school program of study.

 The Secretary also does not agree with the suggestion to add 

additional required coursework to the definition or with the suggestion 

to provide a single definition of a rigorous program of study. These 

suggestions would make the definition overly restrictive and might 

limit the States' authority to establish curricular standards.

 A project, if using the criteria for a rigorous secondary school 

program of study in paragraph (3), cannot substitute a computer science 

course for one year of a language other than English. However, the 

specific course requirements for a rigorous secondary school program of 

study in paragraphs (1), (2), (4), (5), and (6) may differ from those 

in paragraph (3).

 Further, we believe that the criteria provided in paragraphs (3) 

and (4) in the definition of a rigorous secondary school program of 

study are sufficiently different in content and should not be combined 

into a single criterion. While some programs may meet both paragraphs 

(3) and (4), this will not always be the case. We note, for example, 

that the WICHE course requirements are more specific than those 

described in paragraph (3) of the definition. Under paragraph (3) of 

the definition, a program of study must include three years of science, 

including one year each of at least two of the following courses: 

Biology, chemistry, and physics; in contrast, under WICHE requirements, 

a program of study must require that students complete courses in all 

three of these subjects. A program of study that meets paragraph (4) of 

the definition, therefore, will also meet the criteria under paragraph 

(3) of the definition, but the reverse is not true. Finally, we do not 

believe it is necessary to add the word ``or'' after each criterion in 

this definition. The definition provides that a program meeting any one 

of paragraphs (1) through (6) would satisfy the definition of rigorous 

secondary school program of study.

 Changes: None.

 Comment: Several commenters noted that the term ``rigorous 

secondary school diploma'' was not defined in the TS regulations.

 Discussion: We inadvertently referred to ``rigorous secondary 

school diploma'' in the amendatory language when we meant ``rigorous 

secondary school program of study,'' and have corrected this 

typographical error.

 Change: We have corrected the typographical error in the amendatory 

language describing the changes to Sec. 643.7(b).

 What assurances must an applicant submit? (Sec. 643.11(a))

 Comment: Some commenters objected to the proposed change, reflected 

in proposed Sec. 643.11(a), that would have required a project to 

provide an assurance that at least two-thirds of the subset of 

participants receiving support to complete a rigorous secondary school 

program of study must be low-income individuals who are potential 

first-generation college students. The commenters argued that the 

requirement was an unnecessary burden and would be costly for TS 
projects, which serve large numbers of participants, because it would 

require the project to monitor the eligibility and services provided to 

this subset of participants separately.

 Discussion: After reviewing the information provided by the 

commenters, the Secretary agrees that tracking the eligibility of 

participants in a rigorous secondary school program of study separately 

from other TS participants may be overly burdensome and costly to 

grantees so we have decided not to adopt the revisions we proposed for 

Sec. 643.11(a).

[[Page 65727]]

 Changes: In these final regulations, Sec. 643.11(a) will not 

include the proposed addition of the words ``, and at least two-thirds 

of the participants selected to receive support for a rigorous 

secondary school program of study.'' Instead, Sec. 643.11(a) will 

remain substantively unchanged from current Sec. 643.10(a).

Coordination Among Outreach Programs Serving Similar Populations (Sec. 

643.11(b))

 Comment: The Department received many comments regarding the 

language in proposed Sec. 643.11(b), which would have required 

applicants to provide an assurance that individuals receiving project 

services will not receive the same services from another TRIO project, 

a GEAR UP project, or other programs serving similar populations. 

Several commenters argued that this provision goes beyond the statutory 

language and will restrict collaboration among programs. The commenters 

stated that collaboration is essential in the current economic climate.

 Several commenters also expressed concerns about how this provision 

would be implemented. The commenters stated that participants may 

receive the same service from two programs, but at different times of 

the year or on different days of the week. Some commenters expressed 

concerns that the provision could negatively affect individuals who 

already participate in more than one program and who may have to stop 

receiving certain services. Many commenters argued that it would be 

difficult, if not impossible, for projects to track and record all of 

the services that participants may receive from other programs. Some 

commenters noted that, as proposed, Sec. 643.11(b) could prevent 

participants from receiving specialized services, and that often 

services that appear duplicative can actually serve to reinforce 

important concepts. One commenter suggested that this provision could 

create competition among programs. A few commenters also suggested that 

this provision could impede a project's ability to comply with other 

sections of the HEA, such as exposing participants to institutions of 

higher education, cultural events, or academic programs.

 In light of these concerns, many commenters recommended that the 

Department delete Sec. 643.11(b) in its entirety. Others recommended 

striking the words ``a GEAR UP project under 34 CFR part 694'' and ``or 

other programs serving similar populations.'' Some commenters noted 

that projects should consult with other programs to ensure minimal 

overlap of services and suggested that the language in this section be 

revised to permit a participant to enroll in one or more programs as 

long as the programs document which program will provide which 

services.

 Discussion: We intended Sec. 643.11(b) to help ensure that the 

limited funds available under the TRIO, GEAR UP, and other programs for 
disadvantaged students are used effectively and efficiently by 

minimizing the duplication of services. Because many of the same 

services are provided by TS, UB, GEAR UP, and other pre-college 

preparation programs, coordination of activities is essential to ensure 

that these programs reach as many students as possible.

 Grantees are encouraged to share ideas and coordinate services and 

activities with other Federal and non-Federal programs serving similar 

populations, as long as each project maintains fiscal practices that 

ensure that funds are not comingled and that services provided are 

appropriately documented. For example, a TS project and a UB project 

may jointly conduct a field trip to a college campus for participants 

from both projects while assigning costs to each project based on the 

number of its participants and staff who attended.

 To ensure effective coordination of services, we recommend that a 

project, when selecting target schools, determine if there is another 

TRIO, GEAR UP, or similar program at the school; and, if additional 

services are needed at the school, the project should develop 

collaboration plans to avoid duplication of services and competition 

among projects for participants. In selecting project participants, a 

project should also ask the student whether he or she is involved in 

similar college readiness programs so services can be coordinated.

 Based on the comments, the Secretary has determined that proposed 

Sec. 643.11(b) may be difficult to implement. Accordingly, we have 

revised the regulatory provision to address implementation problems 

like those raised by the commenters.

 Changes: We have amended Sec. 643.11(b) to require applicants to 

submit assurances that the project will collaborate with other Federal 

TRIO projects, GEAR UP projects, or programs serving similar 

populations that are serving the same target schools or target area to 

minimize the duplication of services and promote collaborations so that 

more students can be served.

What selection criteria does the Secretary use? Need for the project. 

(Sec. 643.21(a))

 Comment: We received a number of comments on the requirement that, 

for certain criteria in Sec. 643.21(a), the applicant provide data for 

``the most recent year for which data is available.'' These commenters 

suggested that the Department revise Sec. 643.21 to require applicants 

to submit data for multiple years or to reinstate the current 

regulatory language requiring the applicant to provide the required 

data for the preceding three years to substantiate the basis of need.

 Discussion: To reduce the burden on TS applicants, these final 

regulations only require a grantee to provide data on high school 

persistence (see Sec. 643.21(a)(2)), graduation (see Sec. 

643.21(a)(3)), and postsecondary enrollment (see Sec. 643.21(a)(4)) 

for the most recent year for which data are available. Based on our 

experience, these data remain fairly consistent over a three year 

period; therefore, we believe the most recent year's data should be 

sufficient for the peer reviewers to assess the extent of the need for 

the project.

 Changes: None.

 Comment: One commenter suggested that Sec. 643.21(a)(1) should 

focus on students ``enrolled in'' or ``participating in'' the free or 

reduced price lunch program, as described in sections 9(b)(1) and 

17(c)(4) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, rather 

than students ``eligible for'' this program. This commenter also noted 
that applicants from areas such as the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and other outlying areas 

would not be able to respond to the criterion regarding eligibility for 

free or reduced price lunch.

 Discussion: We used the words ``eligible for'' free or reduced 

priced lunch because reporting only on those ``enrolled or 

participating'' in this program may undercount the number of low-income 

students in the target schools because many secondary school students 

choose not to participate in the free or reduced priced lunch program. 

In responding to the selection criterion in Sec. 643.21(a)(1), 

applicants may choose to report either the number or percentage of lowincome families residing in the target area (see paragraph (a)(1)(i) of 

this section) or the number or percentage of students attending the 

target schools who are eligible for free or reduced priced lunch (see 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section). Therefore, applicants from areas 

that do not have the free and reduced priced lunch

[[Page 65728]]

program may satisfy this criterion by providing data on the number or 

percentage of low-income families residing in the target area.

 Changes: None.

 Comment: One commenter stated that the TS program is critical to 

increasing high school persistence and postsecondary enrollment rates 

in target schools but argued that the criteria for determining the need 

for the project in Sec. 643.21(a) worked against this goal. The 

commenter argued that these criteria penalize TS projects that are 

successful in helping the target schools increase their high school 

persistence and postsecondary enrollment rates when these projects 

apply for a new grant to continue to serve these schools. The commenter 

expressed concern that as the performance of these target schools 

improves, the need for the TS project, as defined in these criteria, 

diminishes. The commenter acknowledged the Department's need to 

establish the postsecondary enrollment and high school persistence 

rates for the purposes of benchmarking objectives, but recommended 

that: (1) The Need criteria for low postsecondary enrollment and high 

school persistence rates be removed from the Need section; and (2) that 

the points assigned for low high school persistence and postsecondary 

enrollment rates be redistributed among the other Need criteria.

 Another commenter requested guidance on how applicants in States 

where attrition rates are not reported should respond to the high 

school persistence criterion in Sec. 643.21(a)(2). Other commenters 

stated that data on graduation rates are not collected by their school 

districts and, therefore, are not available at the target schools, 

which would penalize applicants from those areas.

 Several commenters suggested that the high school persistence and 

high school graduation criteria disadvantage projects serving rural 

schools that do not have high dropout rates and do not have low high 

school graduation rates but have low postsecondary enrollment rates and 

little access or low participation in courses needed to complete 

rigorous secondary school programs of study.

 One commenter expressed concern about the criterion on low rates of 

students in the target schools who graduated high school with a regular 

secondary school diploma reflected in Sec. 643.21(a)(3). The commenter 

believes TS applicants would be discouraged from selecting target 

schools that had high rates of students who graduated with a regular 

secondary school diploma as these schools would not demonstrate high 
need. Another commenter noted that in the commenter's State, the 

minimum graduation requirements almost guarantee a rigorous secondary 

school program of study for all graduates. This commenter expressed 

concern that TS applicants in areas that have these rigorous graduation 

requirements would be allowed fewer points for project need under Sec. 

643.21(a)(5) and that this result would be unfair to the students in 

those areas or States that have been proactive by setting high 

standards for high school graduation. Another commenter questioned the 

use of the term ``regular'' diploma noting that, beginning in 2014, a 

``regular'' diploma in the commenter's State would be the same as a 

diploma for completing the State's rigorous curriculum. Those students 

not taking a rigorous secondary school program would receive a 

``modified'' diploma. The commenter stated that by using the term 

``regular'' in the regulations, all TS students in the State would have 

to meet the rigorous curriculum standards.

 Discussion: The proposed criteria for evaluating the need for a TS 

project reflect the changes made by sections 403(a)(5) and 403(b)(1) of 

the HEOA to sections 402A(f)(3)(A) and 402B(a) of the HEA, 

respectively. The new criteria reflected in Sec. 643.21(a) align with 

the purpose of the TS program and with the new statutory outcome 

criteria for the program. Therefore, we do not have the discretion to 

revise Sec. 643.21(a) as requested by the commenter.

 The selection criteria require the applicant to provide in the 

application the data the peer reviewers need to assess the extent to 

which an applicant's designated target area and target schools need the 

services of a TS project. Further, the data provided in the Need 

section of the application provide baseline data that the peer 

reviewers use to evaluate the appropriateness of the applicant's 

proposed project objectives (see Sec. 643.21(b)) and the quality of 

the applicant's plan of operation for addressing the identified needs 

(see Sec. 643.21(c)).

 In responding to the selection criteria, an applicant is expected 

to present the required data and discuss how the data support the need 

for a TS project in the proposed target area and target schools. With 

regard to selection criteria for which the target schools do not 

collect the required information, the applicant, to the extent 

appropriate, may use other data sources (e.g., State or census data) 

and describe how these data relate to the criteria and demonstrate a 

need for a TS project in the target area and target schools. Although 

some applicants may have difficulty securing certain data, all 

applicants should be able to provide the data required for most of the 

criteria. The Department believes that it is the responsibility of 

applicants to judge the need for TS services among potential target 

schools and to present data that supports the need for a TS project in 

the proposed target schools.

 We do not believe the Need criteria will disadvantage an applicant 

providing services in rural communities because the applicant can 

justify the need for a TS project by presenting their data in the 

context of the geographic area in which it is providing services. 

Further, the applicant does not need to compare its data with data from 

other geographic areas (e.g., urban schools).

 The Secretary commends those States that have set high standards 

for high school graduation and the Need criteria in the TS regulations 

do not conflict with such standards. Under Sec. 643.21(a)(5), an 

applicant can demonstrate a need for a TS project by providing data on 

the extent to which the target secondary schools do not offer their 

students the courses or academic support to complete a rigorous 
secondary school program of study or have low participation by lowincome or first-generation students in such courses. Therefore, an 

applicant can show the need for a TS project in schools that have high 

academic standards for high school graduation if TS eligible students 

are not taking rigorous courses. The Secretary also believes that the 

extent to which TS eligible students succeed in completing rigorous 

courses is an important indicator of need. Therefore, we have added the 

extent to which low-income or first generation students in target 

secondary schools succeed in rigorous secondary school program of study 

courses as an indicator of need.

 With regard to the commenter's concern about the use of the term 

``regular diploma,'' we do not have the discretion to change the 

regulatory language at issue because it is required by sections 

402A(f)(3)(A)(iii) and (f)(3)(A)(iv) of the HEA, which mandate that the 

TS program include the following two measures: (1) The extent to which 

participants graduate from secondary school with a regular secondary 

school diploma in the standard number of years; and (2) the extent to 

which participants complete a rigorous secondary school program of 

study.

 Changes: The Secretary has amended proposed Sec. 643.21(a)(5) by 

adding the words ``or low success'' after the word ``participation.''

 Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the Need criteria do 

not

[[Page 65729]]

adequately consider students' achievement and performance in their 

target schools. The commenter stated that proposed Sec. 643.21(a) does 

not reflect the purpose of the TS program, which he believes is to 

promote equal educational access and to eliminate barriers to higher 

education for low-income students. The commenter suggested that 

persistence and graduation rates are not an accurate reflection of 

student performance and achievement within schools in the lowest income 

communities. The commenter suggested that in addition to the points 

awarded for low high school persistence, graduation, and college 

completion, points also should be given for low student achievement and 

low standardized test scores in the target schools or areas.

 Discussion: We agree with the commenter that low academic 

achievement and low standardized test scores of students in the target 

schools are other indicators of need for a TS project. Therefore, we 

have revised the criteria in Sec. 643.21(a)(6) to make these changes. 

We have also redistributed the points assigned to the Need criteria to 

better reflect the relative importance of each of the criteria.

 Changes: We have revised the criteria in Sec. 643.21(a)(6) to 

include low academic achievement and low standardized test scores of 

students enrolled in the target schools as examples of other indicators 

of need for a TS project. We have also reduced the number of points 

assigned to the criteria in Sec. 643.21(a)(1)--high number or 

percentage of low-income families residing in the target area or lowincome students attending the target schools--from six points to four 

points. Finally, we have increased the number of points assigned to the 

criteria in Sec. 643.21(a)(6) from four points to six points.

What selection criteria does the Secretary use? Objectives. (Sec. 

643.21(b))

 Comment: Several commenters suggested that proposed Sec. 
643.21(b)(4) and (b)(5), which would require grantees to track 

participants through postsecondary completion is not within the scope 

or purpose or the TS program. These commenters asserted that the HEA 

only requires projects to encourage and prepare participants for 

``enrollment'' into postsecondary programs. Some commenters also 

suggested that the tracking requirement for this criterion is 

unrealistic based on the high number of participants that are served by 

a TS project.

 Several commenters requested clarification regarding whether 

grantees will need to track all graduates through postsecondary 

completion or just those who participated in a rigorous secondary 

school program of study. Several commenters suggested that grantees 

only be required to include in the random selection process for 

tracking postsecondary completion seniors that graduate from high 

school during the project year. Several commenters requested that a 

more feasible requirement would be to request postsecondary acceptance 

rates or ``college going rates'' because they believe that the 

criterion regarding tracking postsecondary enrollment and completion 

discriminates against high schools that do not track these outcomes and 

that there is no reasonable method to collect this data accurately.

 Other commenters suggested that projects should not be held 

responsible for students' postsecondary degree attainment, which 

requires tracking for four to six years after each graduating class and 

will require projects to follow the academic progress of these students 

once they enter college even though the TS program is not providing any 

services during this time. These commenters expressed concern that this 

criterion does not consider the many factors that determine whether or 

not students will be successful in postsecondary education.

 One commenter requested that we consider revising the regulations 

to avoid imposing mandatory, inefficient, and unreasonable tracking and 

sampling methods. Specifically, the commenter recommended that, because 

sampling and other tracking methods will increase the burden on 

programs, we should eliminate the sampling requirement altogether and 

instead limit tracking of postsecondary completion to only current year 

participants who complete secondary school during the current project 

year.

 Discussion: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(vi) of the HEA, as amended by 

section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, requires the Department to use 

postsecondary education completion, if practicable, in evaluating the 

quality and effectiveness of a TS project. Because TS projects serve 

relatively large numbers of participants, we recognize that it may be 

difficult for the project to track all participants through completion 

of postsecondary education. Therefore, a TS project may track a 

randomly selected sample of its participants. The purpose of Sec. 

643.22(d)(6) is to reduce, not increase, the burden on grantees. A 

grantee, however, is not required to use a sample but may choose to 

track all participants that complete secondary schools and enroll in 

postsecondary education.

 The Secretary plans, subject to meeting the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, to establish standard objectives 

related to postsecondary completion and provide the sampling parameters 

in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and the 

application package for the TS program.

 Changes: None.

What selection criteria does the Secretary use? Plan of Operation: The 

plan to identify and select eligible project participants. (Sec. 
643.21(c)(2))

 Comment: Some commenters requested that Sec. 643.21(c)(2), 

regarding the applicant's plan for identifying and selecting eligible 

participants, be revised to track current Sec. 643.21(c)(2), which 

requires applicants to have a plan to identify and select eligible 

participants and ensure their participation without regard to race, 

color, national origin, gender, or disability.

 Discussion: In developing proposed Sec. 643.21(c)(2), the 

Department elected not to retain the selection criterion requiring 

applicants to have a plan to ensure participants' participation without 

regard to race, color, national origin, gender or disability because we 

believed that this language was duplicative of other regulations. Every 

applicant for Federal financial assistance must submit an assurance to 

the Department that it will comply with the Federal civil rights laws 

(see 34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). Further, grantees 

under the TRIO programs and other programs funded by the Department are 

required to comply with Federal laws that prohibit discrimination on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, or age (see 

34 CFR 75.500, Sec. 643.6(a)(2)).

 Changes: None.

What selection criteria does the Secretary use? Plan of Operation: The 

plan to identify and select eligible project participants, and the plan 

regarding a rigorous secondary school program of study. (Sec. 

643.21(c)(2) and (4)) and Number of Participants (Sec. 643.32(b))

 Comment: Some commenters applauded the Secretary for proposing to 

include in the selection criteria the requirement that applicants have 

a plan to identify and select eligible participants and to provide TS 

services for individuals who need them to complete a rigorous secondary 

school program of study. The commenters requested guidance from the 

Department on its expectations regarding the number or percentage of

[[Page 65730]]

participants that would have to be served in a rigorous program under 

these selection criteria.

 Some commenters expressed concern that the selection criteria 

requiring grantees to assist students to complete a rigorous curriculum 

(Sec. 643.21(c)(4)) would place grantees serving rural areas at a 

serious disadvantage in comparison to those serving urban areas. The 

commenters argued that in order to serve the required number of 

participants, a TS project serving a rural area typically serves more 

target schools and a larger geographic area, which increases project 

costs, particularly staff travel costs. Further, the commenters noted 

that many small rural schools do not offer all the courses a student 

would need to complete a rigorous secondary school program of study.

 Many commenters expressed concern that requiring grantees to assist 

students to complete a rigorous curriculum would add costs for a 

grantee. These commenters stated that providing these services would 

require grantees to hire staff with special skills needed to recruit, 

monitor, and track students in a rigorous curriculum program. The 

commenters suggested that, at the current funding level for this 

program, for a grantee to provide these types of rigorous curriculum 

services to at least 10 percent of the participants, it would need to 

reduce the number of participants from 600 (the currently required 
minimum) to 450. Other commenters noted that the increased costs of 

assisting students taking a rigorous curriculum under Sec. 

643.21(c)(4) and the new requirement to follow participants through 

postsecondary education in Sec. 643.21(c)(5) would force current TS 

projects to serve fewer students than currently being served or reduce 

services.

 Some commenters suggested that the selection criteria in Sec. 

643.21(c)(2) and (c)(4) will require projects to implement a two-tiered 

program of service delivery--the first tier would support the 

participants completing a rigorous curriculum and the second tier would 

provide college preparatory education for those participants not taking 

a rigorous secondary school program of study. The commenters argued 

that this two-tiered approach would force current projects to change 

their participant recruitment and selection strategies, hire additional 

staff, and reduce the number of students currently being served. These 

commenters also contended that, given the current budget crisis in 

local school districts, some projects would not be able to assist 

participants in completing a rigorous secondary school of study under 

Sec. 643.21(c)(4) due to the unavailability of the curriculum and 

other resources.

 Other commenters noted that the proposed changes requiring projects 

to provide intensive services appear to be very similar to the 

requirements of the Upward Bound program. Several commenters requested 

guidance regarding the delivery of services for students in a rigorous 

secondary school program of study who have different educational and 

developmental needs compared to traditional TS students.

 Discussion: In amending the HEA, Congress substantially changed the 

purpose and goals of the TS program. By including in section 

402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA several new outcome criteria for evaluating 

the quality and effectiveness of TS projects, Congress effectively 

required all TS projects to expand the types of services provided. 

Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the statute did not prescribe any 

specific performance measures for TS projects; the current measures 

were established through regulations (see current Sec. 643.22). The 

new statutory outcome criteria for assessing the success of a TS 

project include the following two new measures, which are not included 

in the current regulations: (1) The completion by participants of a 

rigorous secondary school program of study; and (2) to the extent 

practicable, completion by participants of postsecondary education. In 

addition, Congress amended section 402B of the HEA to require TS 

grantees to provide certain services; previously the HEA included only 

a list of ``permissible'' services that a grantee could choose to 

provide to participants. These final TS regulations appropriately 

reflect these statutory changes.

 The Department acknowledges that many rural schools and low 

achieving high schools may not offer all of the courses needed to 

complete a rigorous secondary school program of study and recognizes 

that there will probably be some participants that will need more 

costly and intensive services, such as tutoring or tuition assistance 

to complete the requirements of a rigorous secondary school program of 

study.

 In recognition of the additional costs that grantees likely will 

incur in providing the new services required by the HEOA, including the 

increased costs of assisting students taking a rigorous curriculum and 

following participants through postsecondary education, the Secretary 

revised Sec. 643.32(b) by removing the requirement that grantees serve 

a specified minimum number of participants. Section 643.32(b) specifies 
that the Department will identify the minimum and maximum grant award 

amounts and the minimum number of participants a TS project must serve 

each year of the grant cycle in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for a competition. This practice will give the Department 

the flexibility to establish the minimum number of participants to be 

served based on the available resources and other priorities for each 

competition and to adjust these numbers for subsequent competitions 

based on our experience, changing priorities, and cost analyses.

 The Department acknowledges that not all TS eligible students may 

be ready for a rigorous secondary school program of study. Therefore, 

the Secretary has revised proposed Sec. 643.21(c)(4), which would have 

specified that we evaluate a TS applicant on a plan to provide services 

sufficient to enable TS participants to succeed in a rigorous program 

of study. Instead, the final regulations specify that we will evaluate 

a TS applicant on a plan to work in a coordinated, collaborative, and 

cost-effective manner as part of an overarching college access strategy 

with the target schools or school system and other programs for 

disadvantaged students to provide participants with access to and 

assistance in completing a rigorous secondary school program of study. 

We expect TS grantees to work with their target schools, students, and 

parents to explain the eligibility requirements for participation, and 

the services and activities that will be provided by the TS project and 

those services that will be provided through the target school or by 

other programs.

 Further, because all TS participants will be encouraged to complete 

a rigorous curriculum, the Secretary has also revised proposed Sec. 

643.21(c)(2) by removing the requirement that an applicant present a 

plan for selecting individuals who would receive support to complete a 

rigorous secondary school program of study.

 Although the new statutory outcome criteria for the TS program are 

somewhat similar to those for the UB program and will require new 

project goals and objectives for the TS program, the Department does 

not believe that Congress intended for the TS program to replicate or 

duplicate UB. For example, section 402C(c) of the HEA requires UB 

projects to provide instruction in mathematics through precalculus, 

laboratory science, foreign language, composition, and literature while 

TS projects need only provide ``connections'' to high quality academic 

tutoring services (section 402B(b)(1) of the HEA). The regulations 

properly reflect the differences between the programs.

[[Page 65731]]

 Regarding the comment about students in a rigorous secondary school 

program of study who have different educational and developmental needs 

compared to traditional TS students, we recognize that students in a 

rigorous secondary school of study may have different educational and 

developmental needs than traditional TS students, most of whom have 

needed assistance in completing admission and financial aid 

applications, not academic support. Applicants for TS grants must 

design and implement new service delivery models that are consistent 

with the new statutory requirements and that balance intensity of 

services with strategic coordination with schools and other programs to 

carry out projects that are cost efficient and that best meet students' 

needs, including the needs of students in rigorous secondary school 

program of study.

 Changes: We have amended proposed Sec. 643.21(c)(2) to remove the 

selection criterion requiring an applicant to provide a plan for 
identifying and selecting participants for a rigorous secondary school 

program of study. Thus, final Sec. 643.21(c)(2) requires only that an 

applicant provides a plan for identifying and selecting participants.

 We also have removed the proposed criterion in Sec. 643.21(c)(4) 

and replaced it with a criterion that requires an applicant to present 

a plan to work in a coordinated, collaborative, and cost-effective 

manner as part of an overarching college access strategy with the 

target schools or school system and other programs for disadvantaged 

students to provide participants with access to and assistance in 

completing a rigorous secondary school program of study.

 In Sec. 643.21(c)(5) we have removed from the proposed criterion 

the words ``coordination with other programs for disadvantaged youth'' 

to eliminate duplication of the provision we are adding to Sec. 

643.21(c)(4).

 Finally, we have revised Sec. 643.32(b) to specify that for each 

year of the project period, a grantee must serve at least the number of 

participants that the Secretary identifies in the Federal Register 

notice inviting applications for a competition, and to state that 

through this notice, the Secretary provides the minimum and maximum 

grant award amounts for the competition.

What selection criteria does the Secretary use? Plan of Operation: The 

plan to follow former participants as they enter, continue in, and 

complete postsecondary education. (Sec. 643.21(c)(6))

 Comment: Some commenters objected to the proposed criteria in Sec. 

643.21(c)(6) that would require TS applicants to have a plan to follow 

former participants as they progress in postsecondary education. These 

commenters suggested that it is not reasonable, practicable, or 

economically feasible for the Department to judge the success and 

effectiveness of a TS project on the basis of the degree to which 

participants enter, continue in, and complete postsecondary programs 

when the project cannot provide retention services during the 

participants' college years.

 Discussion: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(v) and (f)(3)(A)(vi) of the HEA 

includes the enrollment in and completion of postsecondary education as 

an outcome criterion for the TS Program. To implement these statutory 

requirements, Sec. 643.21(c)(6) requires applicants to have a plan to 

achieve goals in these areas.

 Changes: None.

 Comment: Some commenters requested that we define the phrase 

``complete postsecondary education,'' as it is used in Sec. 

643.21(c)(6). In particular, these commenters asked if completion of 

vocational and technical degree programs and/or other community college 

degrees would constitute completion of postsecondary education under 

this selection criterion. The commenters suggested that if the standard 

is the completion of a four-year degree, a project could not count TS 

participants enrolling in and completing community and junior colleges 

and career technology programs.

 Discussion: For purposes of Sec. 643.21, the Secretary considers 

programs of postsecondary education to include vocational and technical 

degree programs, associate degree programs, as well as bachelor degree 

programs. Because TS participants may enroll in all types of 

postsecondary programs, the project should present a plan to follow a 

sample of former participants through completion of their programs of 

postsecondary education.

 Changes: None.
What selection criteria does the Secretary use? Applicant and Community 

Support: Resources secured through written commitments. (Sec. 

643.21(d)(2))

 Comment: Several commenters requested clarification of the 

selection criteria requiring that TS applicants get commitments from 

the community. Some commenters asked if an applicant that is an 

institution of higher education must get commitments from institutions 

other than the host institution. Other commenters expressed concern 

that secondary schools would not be interested in becoming educational 

partners with university-based projects because secondary schools are 

now eligible to apply for TS grants. The commenters stated that 

secondary school applicants would have an unfair advantage in a TS 

competition, because they could operate a TS project without getting 

commitments from colleges and universities while an applicant that is 

an institution of higher education or community-based organization 

would need commitments from the secondary schools to effectively serve 

the secondary school students participating in the TS project. The 

commenters recommended that secondary schools be held to the same 

selection criteria as higher education institutions and other eligible 

entities.

 Discussion: The intent of Sec. 643.21(d)(2) is to ensure a fair 

and equitable competition by requiring that all applicants secure 

commitments from various entities within the community. The Secretary 

believes that schools and community organizations should secure 

commitments from institutions of higher education so that these 

organizations have the full scope of partners necessary to implement a 

successful TS program. The Secretary does not agree with the contention 

that possible applicants in the secondary school systems would not be 

interested in partnering with higher education institutions, community 

organizations, or others. Nonetheless, based on the comments received, 

the Secretary believes that the wording of proposed Sec. 643.21(d)(2) 

may be unclear. For this reason, we have made clarifying changes to 

this provision.

 Changes: We have revised proposed Sec. 643.21(d)(2) to state that: 

(i) An applicant that is an institution of higher education must 

include in its application commitments from the target schools and 

community organizations; (ii) an applicant that is a secondary school 

must include in its application commitments from institutions of higher 

education, community organizations, and as appropriate, other secondary 

schools and the school district; and (iii) an applicant that is a 

community organization must include in its application commitments from 

the target schools and institutions of higher education.

[[Page 65732]]

How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience? (Sec. 643.22)

 Comment: Some commenters asked that we revise Sec. 643.22 to 

clarify the meaning of the term ``prior participants'' for purposes of 

the PE evaluation in Sec. 643.22(d)(3) through (d)(5). These 

commenters requested that TS projects not be required to track prior 

participants through postsecondary completion. The commenters stated 

that a requirement to track prior participants after they participate 

in the program is an undue burden on a TS project given the number of 

students served and the amount of funding per participant. The 
commenters argued that grantees should not be required to track nonactive participants who graduated from the program years earlier.

 Several commenters also asked that Sec. 643.22(d)(5) be changed to 

permit participants' postsecondary enrollment to be by the ``fall or 

spring'' term immediately following the school year, instead of by the 

``fall'' term immediately following the school year because some 

participants may need to delay enrollment in postsecondary education.

 Discussion: As noted earlier in this preamble, with the enactment 

of the HEOA, the HEA includes new outcome criteria for the TS program, 

including: Graduation from secondary school with a regular secondary 

school diploma in the standard number of years; the completion of a 

rigorous secondary school program of study; and postsecondary 

enrollment. The Department is required to use these criteria to assess 

the success of a TS project. However, the Department acknowledges that 

TS projects serve large numbers of participants each year and may not 

have the resources needed to track prior participants through high 

school and into postsecondary education. Therefore, the Department is 

revising Sec. 643.22(d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5) by removing the 

requirement to track prior participants and clarifying, in Sec. 

643.22(d)(3) and (d)(4), that grantees must track participants served 

during the project year.

 Further, we have decided to revise the outcome criterion in Sec. 

643.22(d)(5) to focus on participants' enrollment in programs of 

postsecondary education within the time period specified in the 

approved objective rather than stating in the regulation the time frame 

for measurement. The Secretary will, subject to meeting the 

requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, include in the 

application package for the TS programs a standard objective related to 

postsecondary enrollment that includes the time frame for measuring 

postsecondary enrollment. This will give the Secretary the flexibility 

to change the period of measurement for each grant competition based on 

changing situations.

 We have also revised the outcome criterion in Sec. 643.22(d)(6) to 

clarify that a grantee must track the postsecondary completion for only 

those participants who enrolled in a program of postsecondary 

education. The option to use a randomly selected sample of participants 

to track this postsecondary completion should reduce the reporting 

burden on grantees.

 For consistency with the regulatory language used in Sec. 

643.22(d)(2), (d)(3) and (d)(6), we have deleted the words ``the 

percentage of'' in Sec. 643.22(d)(4) and (d)(5). In addition, we have 

revised Sec. 643.22(d)(4) by removing the words ``who enrolled in 

and'' before the words ``completed a rigorous secondary school program 

of study'' to be consistent with the changes we have made to Sec. Sec. 

643.3(b), 643.11(a), 643.21(c)(2) and (c)(4) and 643.32(b)(5), which 

now include additional participant eligibility and recordkeeping 

requirements for students in a rigorous program of study.

 Changes: We have changed proposed Sec. 643.22(d)(3), (d)(4), and 

(d)(5) by removing the reference to prior participants in each of these 

three provisions. In Sec. 643.22(d)(3) and (d)(4), we have clarified 

that current participants are ``participants served during the project 

year.'' In addition, in Sec. 643.22(d)(4) and (d)(5), we have removed 

the words ``the percentage of'' and in Sec. 643.22(d)(4) we have also 

removed the words ``enrolled in and.''

 Further, we have changed proposed Sec. 643.22(d)(5) by replacing 

the words ``by the fall term immediately following the school year'' 

with the words ``within the time period specified in the approved 
objective'' and have revised Sec. 643.22(d)(6) by replacing the words 

``regarding the completion of'' with the words ``project participants 

who enrolled in and completed.''

 Comment: Some commenters stated that the 1.5 PE points in Sec. 

643.22(d)(6) for postsecondary completion should be reduced because 

there are many variables outside the control of the TS project that 

could affect this outcome. The commenters recommended that only onehalf of one point (0.5 point) be assigned to this criterion because the 

participants' postsecondary completion may not be based on direct 

services the project provides to participants.

 Discussion: The Secretary does not agree with the commenters' 

suggestion to reduce the points allocated to the postsecondarycompletion criterion. The Secretary believes that one-half of one point 

is a negligible amount, which goes against the spirit of the HEA. The 

1.5 points for this criterion in Sec. 643.22(d)(6) represents only 10 

percent of the total PE points a project could earn.

 Changes: None.

What are allowable costs? (Sec. 643.30)

 Comment: A number of commenters suggested including several 

additional costs to the list of allowable costs for the TS program in 

Sec. 643.30. Some commenters recommended that we add as an allowable 

cost, participant meals while on field trips, in tutoring sessions, or 

at other events because many participants cannot afford to pay for 

meals while on field trips or at other project sponsored events. Some 

commenters recommended that we add transportation and meals for parents 

to attend certain workshops and college visits.

 Other commenters suggested that we add an allowable cost provision 

for cultural events, including associated transportation, meals, and 

admission fees, because cultural events are permitted under Sec. 

643.4(b)(4) and TS participants would benefit from exposure to these 

events. Commenters also recommended that costs associated with hiring 

instructional staff, evening and weekend staff, or retraining or 

renegotiating contracts with current staff to provide tutoring for 

rigorous coursework, financial literacy programming, or college 

entrance exam preparation be allowable.

 Commenters also suggested that testing fees, including general 

educational development (GED) exam fees, should be allowable, as these 

costs are increasing and TS projects are not always able to attain fee 

waivers.

 Some commenters requested clarification regarding the Department's 

addition of the word ``project'' before the word ``staff'' in Sec. 

643.30(a). These commenters noted that the provision now appears to 

prohibit projects from paying meals and lodging for chaperones and 

part-time summer staff.

 Discussion: Section 643.30(a) permits a project to pay 

transportation, meals, and, if necessary, lodging, for participants and 

staff in a number of situations, including for field trips to observe 

and meet with persons employed in various career fields. However, the 

TS program is a low cost per participant program and we do not believe 

adding meals as an allowable cost for all field trips, tutoring 

sessions, or other events, or adding transportation and meals for 

parents to attend certain workshops and college visits would be the 

best use of limited resources.

[[Page 65733]]
 Section 643.30(c) establishes the conditions upon which a TS 

project may pay for college applications or entrance examinations. We 

have revised Sec. 643.30(c) to include fees that are required for 

alternative education examinations, including the GED. Further, as one 

of the required services, a TS project must assist participants in 

preparing for college entrance examinations; however, because the TS 

program is a low cost per participant program, we do not believe it is 

reasonable for a TS project to pay a third party for college entrance 

exam preparation for individual participants.

 Regarding an allowable cost provision for cultural events, the 

Department believes that field trips and campus visits, which are 

allowable costs, may have cultural benefits for participants. While we 

encourage grantees to incorporate cultural events into these types of 

trips, we do not agree that cultural events should be added to the 

regulations as a separate allowable cost category. While the Department 

understands the value of cultural events, we believe that adding them 

as an allowable cost would divert scarce resources away from direct 

college-access services. Connections to tutoring and financial and 

economic literacy services are required services of the TS program; 

therefore, costs associated with providing these services would be 

allowable, including hiring or retraining staff members to provide 

these services.

 Nonetheless, the Department encourages grantees to seek low cost 

alternatives to hiring instructional staff, such as seeking connections 

to existing tutoring or financial literacy services for TS 

participants. Further, TS grantees should coordinate with the target 

schools and other organizations in the community to ensure that 

participants have access to the full range of services required for 

success.

 Finally, the term project staff, as used in Sec. 643.30(a), 

includes part-time staff, including summer staff, and volunteers 

responsible for chaperoning TS participants on field trips and campus 

visits; therefore project funds may be used to pay for these 

individuals' meals and lodging.

 Changes: We have revised Sec. 643.30(c) to include examination 

fees for alternative education programs if a waiver of the fee is 

unavailable and the fee is paid by the grantee to a third party on 

behalf of a participant.

 Comment: One commenter noted that transportation costs for 

participants in a rigorous curriculum in rural areas would be costly 

and may use up limited TS funds. The commenter argued that level 

funding has damaged a TS project's ability to provide additional 

transportation costs, particularly in light of the costs of the fringe 

benefits required to be provided to TS staff as mandated by most State 

institutions. Other commenters argued that projects do not have 

sufficient funding to provide tuition for participants. Some commenters 

also noted that payment of tuition for a few participants may be 

perceived as discriminatory by participants pursuing regular secondary 

school diplomas.

 Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern that the costs 

associated with transportation of participants in rural areas and 

payment of tuition would use up limited TS funding. We also appreciate 

commenters' concern that payment of tuition for a few participants may 

be perceived as discriminatory. On the other hand, during the 

negotiated rulemaking sessions, some non-Federal negotiators argued 

that allowing grantees to use grant funds for this purpose was 
necessary to meet the goals of the statute. As discussed earlier in 

this preamble, one of the new statutory outcome criteria for the TS 

program requires that TS projects report data on the completion by 

participants of a rigorous secondary school program of study that would 

make them eligible for grants under the Academic Competitiveness Grants 

(ACG) Program. Some non-Federal negotiators recommended that TS 

grantees be authorized to pay transportation and tuition costs for 

participants who are trying to complete a rigorous program, when 

courses required for the program are not offered at the secondary 

school the participant attends or at another local school. The 

Department decided to allow grantees to use program funds for this 

purpose. The regulations do not require TS grantees to provide tuition 

or transportation costs for participants but authorizes this expense as 

an allowable cost to assist students in completing a rigorous secondary 

school program of study.

 Changes: None.

 Comment: Some commenters suggested allowing TS program funds to be 

used to pay for ``service agreements'' for computer systems and related 

technology because many technology systems may require service 

agreements to cover repairs and software packages.

 Discussion: We agree with the suggestion made by the commenters.

 Changes: We have amended Sec. 643.30(f) and (g) to include service 

agreements as an allowable cost.

 Comment: A few commenters recommended that we revise Sec. 

643.30(h)(3) to allow TS funds to be used to pay for tuition costs for 

accredited courses offered online because the availability of online 

courses has increased and allowing TS funds to be used for these 

courses could increase student access to rigorous curriculum study. One 

commenter recommended revising Sec. 643.30(h)(3) to allow TS funds to 

be used to pay for coursework that may be offered by a college at sites 

other than the college campus, such as online or at a secondary school 

campus. Other commenters suggested allowing costs for Advanced 

Placement (AP) and the Idaho Digital Learning Academy coursework as 

these options may be available at participants' high schools and may 

cost less than postsecondary tuition.

 Some commenters noted that in the commenters' State, students must 

earn a grade of ``C'' or better in a series of courses to complete a 

rigorous secondary school program of study. Due to budget constraints, 

however, many high schools will not allow students to repeat a course 

in which the student earned a ``D,'' since the student would still 

receive credit for the course. Despite receiving credit in this case, 

the student would not be eligible to complete a rigorous secondary 

school program of study, unless the student was able to repeat the 

course and earn a grade of ``C'' or better. The commenter recommended 

that projects be allowed to provide tuition assistance for participants 

under this circumstance.

 One commenter noted that one reason participants may not have 

access to rigorous coursework is that available slots in the courses

are full due to overcrowding in the district. This commenter noted that 

under the current regulations, TS projects may only use TS funds to pay 

tuition for participants if ``the course or a similar course is not 

offered at the secondary school that the participant attends or at 

another school within the participant's school district,'' which would 

not allow projects to assist participants who are not able to take a 

course due to overcrowding. The commenter recommended that the 

regulations permit projects to provide tuition assistance for these 
participants to take the needed courses elsewhere.

 One commenter requested clarification as to whether text books and 

lab fees are allowable costs. Another commenter requested clarification 

on whether all eight criteria listed in the regulations must be met for 

a project to provide tuition assistance.

 Discussion: We agree with the proposal to revise Sec. 643.30(h)(3) 

to allow TS grantees to pay for courses taken through an accredited 

institution

[[Page 65734]]

of higher education, including online courses and courses provided at a 

site other than the institution's campus, such as at a secondary school 

campus, provided the course meets all the conditions in Sec. 

643.30(h). Section 643.30(h)(3) does not authorize TS grantees to pay 

for courses provided by accredited institutions at the secondary 

school's campus if the course is generally available to students at the 

target schools through an arrangement between the school district and 

the institution of higher education (e.g., dual enrollment courses).

 We do not agree that TS grant funds should be used to pay for 

Advanced Placement (AP) and other courses available through the 

participant's high school, for students to repeat courses to receive a 

higher grade, or for participants to enroll elsewhere in cases of 

overcrowded courses that are already offered at their schools or in 

their school districts. The purpose of Sec. 643.30(h) is to allow 

grantees to pay the costs of courses that are part of a rigorous 

secondary school program of study only in exceptional situations in 

which a participant does not have access to a course or courses through 

his or her high school.

 Furthermore, while we recognize that districts may face 

overcrowding for enrollment in some secondary school courses, we 

believe that applicants should partner closely with target schools and 

the school districts during pre-grant planning efforts to mitigate 

enrollment hurdles, to the extent practicable. We do not believe that 

limited project funds should be used to pay tuition for courses that 

are already offered in a participant's school or district. As part of 

the collaboration with the target schools, institutions of higher 

education and other community organizations, TS participants should be 

provided the same opportunities and access to rigorous courses as other 

students in the target schools.

 Finally, project funds may be used to cover tuition and required 

textbooks and lab fees only if all eight criteria listed in Sec. 

643.30(h) have been met.

 Changes: We have amended proposed Sec. 643.30(h)(3) to authorize 

the use of TS funds to pay for courses taken through an accredited 

institution of higher education.

 Comment: A few commenters recommended allowing TS projects to pay 

stipends to students in a rigorous secondary school program of study to 

help defray transportation costs when a student has to stay after 

school or obtain additional tutoring. The commenters requested that 

participant stipends be added to the list of allowable costs so that TS 

will offer benefits comparable to those in other programs such as GEAR 

UP and Upward Bound.

 Discussion: The cost for transportation for participants to receive 

instruction, tutoring, or other services provided by the project that 

is part of a rigorous secondary school program of study is an allowable 

cost in Sec. 643.30(a)(4). We do not agree with the proposal to 
authorize the use of TS funds to pay stipends to participants. Stipends 

are only permitted in the TRIO programs when they are specifically 

authorized by statute. The HEA does not authorize stipends in the TS 

program.

 Changes: None.

What other requirements must a grantee meet?

Number of Participants

 Comment: We received three comments on the proposal to remove the 

minimum number of participants from the regulations. One commenter 

noted that the provision would favor newer, smaller projects while 

another commenter expressed concern about the possible fluctuation in 

participant numbers from one grant cycle to the next which might 

jeopardize relationships with the target schools if the project had to 

reduce the number of student services. Another commenter hoped that the 

Department would consider the higher costs of providing services to 

participants taking a rigorous program of study and the varying cost of 

living indexes throughout the country in determining the minimum number 

of participants for a competition.

 Discussion: In recognition of the additional costs that grantees 

likely will incur in providing the new services required or permitted 

by the HEOA, including the increased costs of assisting students taking 

a rigorous curriculum and following participants through postsecondary 

education, the Secretary is not including in Sec. 643.32(b) the 

requirement that grantees serve a specified minimum number of 

participants. Instead, as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we 

believe it is appropriate for the Secretary to identify the minimum and 

maximum grant award amounts and the minimum number of participants a TS 

project must serve each year of the grant cycle in the Federal Register 

notice inviting applications for a competition. This practice will give 

the Department the flexibility to establish the minimum number of 

participants to be served based on the available resources and 

priorities for each competition and to adjust these numbers for 

subsequent competitions based on our experience, changing priorities, 

and cost analyses.

 Changes: We have revised Sec. 643.32(b) to clarify that a grantee 

must serve at least the number of participants that the Secretary 

identifies in the application notice for the competition.

List of Courses Taken by Participants (proposed Sec. 643.32(b)(5))

 Comment: Commenters expressed concerns about proposed Sec. 

643.32(b)(5), which would have required TS grantees to maintain a list 

of courses taken by participants that receive support to complete a 

rigorous secondary school program of study. The commenters argued that 

this requirement would impose an additional burden on grantees and 

increase the costs of staff time for recordkeeping and the utilization 

of office resources.

 Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters that the 

requirement for a list of courses would impose a significant 

recordkeeping burden that would outweigh the benefits of the practice 

and, therefore, has deleted proposed Sec. 643.32(b)(5).

 Changes: The Secretary is not including proposed Sec. 643.32(b)(5) 

in these final regulations.

 Comment: None.
 Discussion: Based on comments we received regarding proposed Sec. 

643.11(b), we have revised the required assurance in Sec. 643.11(b). 

Because of the change to Sec. 643.11(b), we believe it is necessary to 

add a new Sec. 643.32(c)(5) to require that for each TS participant, 

the grantee, to the extent practicable, must maintain a record of any 

services the participant receives during the project year under other 

TRIO or federally funded programs that serve populations similar to 

those served under the TS program. This provision has been added to 

help ensure that the limited funds available under TRIO, GEAR UP, and 

other programs for disadvantaged students are used effectively and 

efficiently by minimizing the duplication of services through 

coordination of activities.

 Change: A new Sec. 643.32(c)(5) has been added, requiring grantees 

to maintain a record of any services TS participants receive during the 

project year from another TRIO program or federally funded program that 

serves populations similar to those served under the TS program.

Project Director (proposed Sec. 643.32(c))

 Comment: Many commenters suggested that proposed Sec. 643.32(c), 

which restricts a grant program director from administering more than 

three programs, was confusing. One commenter also suggested that the

[[Page 65735]]

Department strike the words ``one or two,'' so that project directors 

may administer more than three programs in order to foster 

collaboration and cost savings.

 Discussion: The Secretary agrees that proposed Sec. 643.32(c)(3) 

may have been confusing and has clarified the regulation. The 

Secretary, however, does not agree with the recommendation to permit a 

project director to administer more than three programs without 

receiving a waiver. We acknowledge that permitting a project director 

to administer more than one program encourages collaboration among the 

programs and may provide cost savings. However, project directors 

responsible for more than three programs may not be able to effectively 

manage each of the programs. In situations in which a grantee wants the 

project director to administer more than three TRIO or similar 

programs, the grantee must submit a detailed justification to the 

Secretary for approval.

 Changes: We have revised proposed Sec. 643.32(c)(3) (final Sec. 

643.32(d)(3)) to clarify the standard the Secretary will use to 

consider requests for a waiver of the restriction on the number of 

programs a project director may administer.

Educational Opportunity Centers (34 CFR Part 644)

 Section 403(f) of the HEOA made changes to the requirements for the 

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) program in section 402F of the 

HEA. The HEA now includes a requirement that EOC projects be designed 

``to improve the financial literacy and economic literary of students'' 

and education and counseling services ``designed to improve the 

financial and economic literacy of students'' as services an EOC 

project may provide.

 The Department received several comments and questions about this 

new program requirement. The commenters expressed concern that EOC 

projects do not have sufficient time with participants to ``improve'' 
their financial and economic literacy, in addition to meeting all other 

programmatic requirements and needs of participants. Another commenter 

was concerned that the additional services required of EOC projects, in 

addition to the new populations to be served, will not be supported by 

increased funding. One commenter expressed the belief that the proposed 

regulations would require EOC grantees to focus on fully preparing 

adult participants for postsecondary education programs, where 

previously the program focused on simply providing information about 

opportunities to attend college and to assist participants with college 

admission and financial aid applications.

 We address specific comments on the changes to the EOC program 

regulations in the following section. The Department also plans to 

provide applicants with additional guidance on the new program 

requirements through the published application materials. In addition, 

the Department will conduct 10 pre-application workshops to assist 

entities interested in applying for EOC grants and will post a list of 

frequently asked questions on the TRIO Programs Web site at: 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html.

Educational Opportunity Centers (34 CFR Part 644)

What is the Educational Opportunity Centers program? (Sec. 644.1)

 Comment: Several commenters stated that Sec. 644.1 should be 

revised to specifically mention that EOC projects provide assistance 

for individuals who have dropped out of secondary schools because 

projects are assessed, in the objectives and prior experience sections, 

on their success in assisting participants without a secondary school 

diploma or its equivalent. Some commenters also expressed concerns that 

EOC projects do not have sufficient time with participants to 

``improve'' their financial and economic literacy. These commenters 

suggested that the word ``improve'' in Sec. 644.1 be changed to 

``provide.''

 Discussion: To ensure consistency between the statutory language in 

section 402F(a) of the HEA, which describes the program authority and 

services to be provided under the EOC program, and Sec. 644.1, we 

decline to make the changes requested by the commenters.

 Changes: None.

Who is eligible for a grant? (Sec. 644.2)

 Comment: Several commenters questioned the fact that Sec. 644.2 

now includes secondary schools as eligible applicants. Specifically, 

they expressed concern that because the target population of EOC 

participants is adults, secondary schools would be less capable of 

operating an EOC project than organizations that serve primarily adult 

populations, such as immigrant education programs, employment agencies, 

or postsecondary institutions. Two commenters suggested that secondary 

schools should be allowed to receive an EOC grant only if there are no 

similar projects in the area designed to assist adult students.

 Discussion: We do not have the authority to remove secondary 

schools from the list of eligible applicants or to limit their 

eligibility under this program because section 402A(b)(1) of the HEA 

specifically includes secondary schools among the entities eligible to 

receive EOC grants.

 Changes: None.
What services may a project provide? (Sec. 644.4)

 Comment: Some commenters expressed concern about Sec. 644.4(e), 

which includes education and counseling services designed to improve 

the financial and economic literacy of participants as a permissible 

service for EOC grantees. One commenter wanted to know whether 

participants must be tested on their financial literacy to determine 

whether they have benefitted from the training. Another commenter 

expressed concern that the additional services for the new populations 

listed in Sec. 644.4(k) would not be supported by increased funding.

 Discussion: Section 644.4 reflects the statutory changes made to 

the list of services that an EOC project may provide, as specified in 

section 402F(b) of the HEA. An EOC project may, but is not required, to 

provide these services listed in Sec. 644.4. While an EOC project may 

provide education and counseling services designed to improve the 

financial and economic literacy of participants, there is no 

requirement that participants be tested to determine if they benefitted 

from the services.

 Changes: None.

What selection criteria does the Secretary use? (Sec. 644.21)

Objectives (Sec. 644.21(b))

 Comment: A number of commenters stated that they believed that the 

point value assigned to the first two objectives in proposed Sec. 

644.21(b) (i.e., (a) enrollment of participants who do not have a 

secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent in programs 

leading to a secondary school diploma or its equivalent and (b) 

postsecondary enrollment) should be weighted less than or equal to the 

second two objectives (i.e., financial aid assistance and college 

admissions assistance) because EOC staff spend most of their resources 

and time assisting participants with financial aid and college 

admission assistance. One commenter recommended reducing the points for 

the postsecondary enrollment objective to three points and increasing 

the points for financial assistance and college admission assistance 

objectives to one and one half points each.

[[Page 65736]]

 One commenter expressed concern that the weighting of the points 

for the objective on enrollment in secondary education was less than 

for postsecondary enrollment and that this strongly suggested that 

working with persons without a secondary education diploma or its 

equivalent has a lesser value than focusing on postsecondary enrollment 

of participants. The commenter further stated that it would appear more 

equitable if greater value were placed on efforts to assist persons in 

continuing and completing their secondary education and to assist those 

same persons in enrolling in a postsecondary program. Therefore, the 

commenter recommended that we provide four points for enrolling in 

programs that lead to a secondary degree or its equivalent and two 

points for postsecondary enrollment.

 Several commenters recommended that we revise the postsecondary 

enrollment objective in Sec. 644.21(b)(2) and the related PE criterion 

in Sec. 644.22(d)(2) by eliminating the restriction that the 

participants be secondary school graduates before enrolling in 

postsecondary education. The commenters recommended these changes 
because, they argued, many postsecondary institutions with open 

enrollment policies accept individuals who have not first obtained a 

high school diploma or its equivalent. Some commenters expressed 

concern that it would be difficult for projects to fulfill the 

postsecondary enrollment objective because many adult education 

programs are overbooked and underfunded, resulting in EOC participants 

being placed on waiting lists to either participate in adult education 

classes or take the GED exam.

 Numerous commenters recommended that the word ``student'' in 

Sec. Sec. 644.21(b)(3) and (b)(4) be replaced with the word 

``participant'' to better reflect the population assisted by EOC 

grantees. One commenter also recommended that EOC grantees be evaluated 

on how many participants applied for financial aid, rather than how 

many participants were assisted with applications for financial aid, 

and on how many participants actually applied for admission, rather 

than how many participants were assisted with college applications.

 Discussion: The objectives for an EOC project in Sec. 644.21(b) 

and the related PE criterion in Sec. 644.22(d) generally reflect the 

statutory outcome criteria in section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA. With 

regard to the postsecondary enrollment objective in Sec. 644.21(b)(2) 

and the related PE criterion in Sec. 644.22(d)(2), the language 

referenced is in section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA and cannot be changed 

as the commenters requested.

 The Secretary agrees with the commenters' recommendation to 

increase the number of points assigned to the student financial aid and 

the college admission objectives, but we do not agree that the points 

assigned to these two criteria should be equal to or greater than the 

points assigned to the postsecondary enrollment criterion. Further, we 

do not agree with the commenter that the points for the secondary 

school diploma objective should be equal to or greater than the 

postsecondary enrollment objective since postsecondary enrollment is 

the primary goal of the program. Nonetheless, we have reduced the 

number of points assigned to the postsecondary enrollment objective and 

increased the points assigned to the financial aid and college 

admission objectives. While we agree that assisting participants in 

completing financial aid and college admission applications are 

valuable services of the program, they are not the ultimate goal of 

EOC. We believe that educational attainment is the mission of the 

program and, that secondary school completion and postsecondary 

enrollment are the more important performance measures for the program 

and should be rewarded accordingly.

 The objectives for an EOC project in Sec. 644.21(b) and the 

related PE criterion in Sec. 644.22(d) generally reflect the language 

used for the statutory outcome criteria in section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the 

HEA. With regard to the postsecondary enrollment objective in Sec. 

644.21(b)(2) and the related PE criterion in Sec. 644.22(d)(2), the 

language referenced is in section 402A(f)(3)(E) and cannot be changed 

as the commenters requested.

 We have responded to the comment about eliminating the restriction 

that the participants be secondary school graduates before enrolling in 

postsecondary education in the preamble discussion section for comments 

on Sec. 644.22(d)(2) through (d)(5) later in this preamble.

 Finally, the Secretary agrees with the suggestion to change Sec. 

644.21(b)(3) and (b)(4) to better reflect the intent of the objective, 

which is to measure the extent to which participants completed 

financial aid and college admission applications. This change is 

consistent with the statutory language in section 402A(f)(3)(E)(iv) of 
the HEA.

 Changes: The Secretary has revised the wording of the proposed 

objectives in Sec. 644.21(b)(1) through (b)(5) to refer to: (1) 

Secondary school diploma or equivalent, (2) Postsecondary enrollment, 

(3) Financial aid applications, and (4) College admission applications. 

The Secretary has also revised Sec. 644.21(b) by reducing the number 

of points assigned to the postsecondary enrollment objective to three 

points (see paragraph (b)(2)) and increasing the number of points for 

the financial aid applications and the college admission applications 

to 1.5 points each (see paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4), respectively).

What selection criteria does the Secretary use? Applicant and community 

support Sec. 644.21(d)

 Comment: All of the comments regarding our proposed changes to 

Sec. 644.21(d) recommended that we not require EOC applicants to 

obtain commitments from secondary schools. The commenters argued that 

because most EOC participants are adults, most EOC projects do not work 

with secondary schools; therefore, it does not make sense to require 

EOC projects to secure commitments from secondary schools.

 Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters and has 

decided not to specifically evaluate the extent to which the applicant 

secures commitments of support from secondary schools. Further, the 

Secretary has decided that current Sec. 644.21(d)(2) remains 

appropriate for the EOC program. The Department believes that this 

provision is appropriate because it allows, but does not require, the 

Secretary to consider the extent to which an applicant secures 

commitments from entities that may include secondary schools or 

institutions of higher education. We continue to believe that secondary 

schools and institutions of higher education may be able to offer 

assistance and resources to help an EOC project achieve its goals. For 

example, a secondary school or college may make its computer lab 

available for adult students to use in the evenings. Therefore, the 

Secretary encourages each EOC project to solicit commitments from many 

organizations within the community it serves, including, if 

appropriate, secondary schools.

 Changes: We are not including the proposed changes to Sec. 

644.21(d) in the final regulations.

How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?--Secondary school 

diploma; Postsecondary enrollment; Financial Aid Applications; College 

Admission Applications (Sec. 644.22(d)(2) through (d)(5))

 Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern that awarding PE 

points for the number of participants

[[Page 65737]]

who receive a secondary school diploma conflicts with the selection 

criteria that focuses on the enrollment of participants in programs 

leading to a secondary school diploma or its equivalent. In addition, 

some commenters stated that it would be difficult for projects to meet 

this objective because many adult education programs are overbooked and 

underfunded, resulting in EOC participants being placed on waiting 

lists to participate in adult education classes and to take the GED 

exam.

 Some commenters noted that while some postsecondary institutions 
permit attendance without a high school diploma, students who enroll 

this way cannot be counted as EOC successes if the project is only 

permitted to measure the number of participants who enroll ``in 

programs leading to a secondary school diploma or its equivalent.'' The 

commenters suggested that the prior experience criterion in Sec. 

644.22(d)(2) be changed to refer to the number of participants who 

enroll in a continuing education program, so that the criterion 

includes participants without a high school diploma who enroll in 

secondary or postsecondary education. Alternatively, one commenter 

recommended that the Department eliminate this criterion entirely. 

Other commenters noted that Sec. 644.22(d)(2) prevents projects from 

counting a participant who enrolls in postsecondary education prior to 

attaining a high school diploma as a success under the postsecondary 

enrollment, financial aid assistance, or college admission assistance 

criteria, which would use high school graduation or its equivalent in 

their calculations

 Regarding the postsecondary enrollment criterion in Sec. 

644.22(d)(3), one commenter expressed concern that the phrase 

``secondary school graduates'' in this criterion would preclude 

projects from counting a student who directly enrolls in postsecondary 

education, prior to attaining a high school diploma, as a success under 

the criterion. Several other commenters recommended extending the time 

period specified in this criterion (i.e., the fall term immediately 

following the school year) in which a participant must enroll in a 

program of postsecondary education. Specifically, the commenters 

thought the period used to calculate this criterion consider the 

following factors: Many EOC participants enroll in community colleges, 

which are currently deferring admissions to the spring semester because 

of overcrowding; EOC participants enroll in nontraditional programs 

with rolling admissions dates that are not necessarily in the fall; and 

EOC participants often have greater burdens than the typical TRIO 

participants and, as a result, take longer to get into postsecondary 

programs than do low-income, first-generation students who did not drop 

out of high school.

 Some commenters argued that the point value assigned to the 

postsecondary enrollment criterion in Sec. 644.22(d)(3) should be less 

than or equal to the other objectives. A number of commenters also 

argued that the point value assigned to the financial aid and college 

admission criteria in Sec. 644.22(d)(4) and (d)(5) should have the 

same or greater value than the other criteria because financial aid and 

college admissions assistance are key services and EOC staff spend the 

majority of their time assisting participants in these areas.

 One commenter suggested that the Department change the point value 

assigned to the postsecondary enrollment criterion in Sec. 

644.22(d)(3) to four points and increase the point value for financial 

aid and college admissions assistance in Sec. 644.22(d)(4) and (d)(5) 

to two and one half points each.

 Discussion: We agree with the commenters that the proposed 

secondary school graduation objective criterion, under the selection 

criteria in Sec. 644.21(b), should be changed to align with the PE 

outcome measures. (See the discussion and changes for Sec. 644.21(b) 

earlier in this preamble.) We do not, however, agree with the 

commenters' suggestion that the Department remove or substantively 

revise the outcome criterion in Sec. 644.22(d)(3) because this outcome 

criterion reflects the criterion described in section 402A(f)(3)(E)(ii) 

of the HEA.

 While we sympathize with the concerns of the commenters who find 
that it is more difficult for the populations served by EOC projects to 

achieve educational goals because of the many barriers they face, the 

purpose of PE points is to reward the applicants who have met or 

exceeded their approved objectives. Applicants are expected to propose 

objectives that are ambitious and attainable given the plan they 

develop to address the needs of the target population in their 

application. The applicant's objectives should take into consideration 

known barriers to success, such as waitlists for participation in adult 

education programs in the applicant's target area.

 Section 402A(f)(3)(E)(ii) of the HEA specifies that, for the 

postsecondary enrollment criterion, participants must be secondary 

school graduates. However, the financial aid and college admission 

applications criteria in the statute (see section 402A(f)(3)(E)(iv) of 

the HEA) do not require participants to be secondary school graduates; 

therefore, a project may count individuals who are not secondary school 

graduates for the purposes of these objectives.

 In response to the comment about extending the time period in Sec. 

644.22(a)(3), the Department has decided to change the wording in Sec. 

644.22(d)(2) by adding after the word ``equivalent'' the words ``within 

the time period specified in the approved objective'' and, in Sec. 

644.22(d)(3), by removing the words ``by the fall term immediately 

following the school year'' and adding, in their place, the words 

``within the time period specified in the approved objective.'' The 

Secretary plans, subject to meeting the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, to establish standard objectives for completion 

of secondary school and postsecondary enrollment that will include the 

time frame for measurement.

 Recipients of regular secondary school diplomas or other equivalent 

degrees or certificates, including GEDs, are considered secondary 

school graduates for purposes of Sec. 644.22(a)(3).

 We agree with the commenters' recommendation to redistribute the 

weights for the PE criteria by reducing the number of points assigned 

to postsecondary enrollment and increasing the points assigned to 

financial aid assistance and college admission assistance. However, we 

do not agree that the points assigned to the financial aid assistance 

and college admission assistance criteria should be equal to or greater 

than the points assigned to the postsecondary enrollment criterion. As 

we mentioned earlier in this preamble, while assisting participants in 

completing financial aid and college admission applications is a 

valuable service of the program, it is not the ultimate goal of EOC. We 

believe that educational attainment is the mission of the program and 

therefore we believe secondary school completion and postsecondary 

enrollment are the most important performance measures for the program 

and should be rewarded accordingly. We have reduced the number of 

points for the postsecondary enrollment criterion in Sec. 644.22(d)(3) 

to five points and increased the points assigned to the financial aid 

assistance and college admission assistance criteria in Sec. 

644.22(d)(4) and (d)(5) to two points each.

 Further, to be consistent with the changes we made to the 

objectives in Sec. Sec. 644.21(b)(3) and (b)(4), we have

[[Page 65738]]

revised the PE criteria related to financial aid and college admission 

assistance in Sec. 644.22(d)(4) and (d)(5). Because EOC projects will 

report on program outcomes annually, in Sec. 644.22(d)(2) and (d)(3), 

we have clarified that the objective applies only to ``participants 
served during the project year.'' In Sec. 644.22(d)(2) we have revised 

the wording of the criterion to clarify that we will be measuring the 

extent to which participants receive a secondary school diploma.

 Changes: We have modified Sec. 644.22(d)(2) to provide that we 

will consider whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved 

objective with regard to participants served during the project year 

who do not have a secondary school diploma or its equivalent who will 

receive a secondary school diploma or its equivalent within the time 

period specified in the approved objective.

 In Sec. 644.22(d)(3), we have changed the weight from 6 points to 

5 points. We also have changed this section to provide that we will 

consider whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective 

with regard to the secondary school graduates served during the project 

year who enroll in programs of postsecondary education within the time 

period specified in the approved objective.

 In Sec. 644.22(d)(4), we have changed the weight from 1.5 points 

to 2 points. We also have revised this section to provide that we will 

consider whether the applicant met or exceeded its objective regarding 

participants applying for financial aid.

 Finally, in Sec. 644.22(d)(5), we have changed the weight from 1.5 

points to 2 points. We also have amended Sec. 644.22(d)(5) to provide 

that we will consider whether the applicant met or exceeded its 

objective regarding participants applying for college admission.

What are allowable costs? (Sec. 644.30)

 Comment: One commenter suggested adding admissions fees to the 

allowable costs in Sec. 644.30(a) and removing the requirement that a 

grantee obtain specific prior approval from the Secretary from this 

provision. The commenter argued that EOC project directors, like 

project directors in other TRIO programs, should have the authority to 

use EOC funds to pay for transportation, meals, admissions fees, and 

lodging when they determine these expenses are necessary and 

appropriate. One commenter suggested that we add service agreements as 

an allowable cost in Sec. 644.30(f) because many technology systems 

may require service agreement to cover repairs and software packages. 

Several commenters argued that testing fees and the cost of tutoring 

for the general education development (GED) exam should be allowable 

costs for the program.

 Discussion: Because EOC is a very low cost per participant program, 

the Secretary does not agree with the commenter's suggestion to include 

admissions fees as an allowable cost. The other allowable costs in 

Sec. 644.30(a)--transportation, meals, and, with specific prior 

approval of the Secretary, lodging--are only allowable under the 

specific circumstances listed in the regulation. Furthermore, we do not 

agree with the commenter's recommendation to remove the provision that 

requires grantees to receive prior approval from the Secretary to use 

project funds to pay for lodging. Because payments for lodging divert 

scarce resources from direct college access services to participants, 

we believe that the expense is only justified in exceptional 

circumstances.

 Section 644.30(c) establishes the conditions upon which an EOC 

project may pay for college applications or entrance examinations. In 

response to public comments, we have revised Sec. 643.30(c) to include 

examination fees for alternative education programs. We also agree with 

the suggestion to include a service agreement as an allowable cost in 

Sec. 644.30(f).
 Changes: We have revised Sec. 644.30(c) to include examination 

fees for alternative education programs as an allowable cost if a 

waiver of the fee is unavailable. We have also revised Sec. 644.30(f) 

to include a service agreement as an allowable cost.

What other requirements must a grantee meet?

Number of Participants

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: As discussed in the preamble discussion regarding 

number of participants for the TS program, we believe it is appropriate 

for the Secretary to identify the minimum and maximum grant award 

amounts and the minimum number of participants a project must serve 

each year of the grant cycle in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for a competition. We believe this is true for EOC 

projects (along with UB, SSS and McNair projects) as well. This 

practice will give the Department the flexibility to establish the 

minimum number of participants to be served based on the available 

resources and other priorities for each competition and to adjust these 

numbers for subsequent competitions based on our experience, changing 

priorities, and cost analyses.

 Changes: We have revised Sec. 644.32(b) to clarify that a grantee 

must serve at least the number of participants that the Secretary 

identifies in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the 

competition, and to state that through this notice, the Secretary 

provides the minimum and maximum grant award amounts for the 

competition.

Coordination Among Outreach Programs Serving Similar Populations (new 

Sec. 644.32(c)(4))

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: Based on comments we received on proposed Sec. 

643.11(b) for the Talent Search program, we have added a provision 

regarding the coordination of efforts necessary for students served by 

more than one TRIO or other federally funded program to the additional 

requirements a grantee must meet under Sec. 644.32(c)(4). Accordingly, 

Sec. 644.32(c)(4) now requires an EOC grantee, to the extent 

practicable, to maintain a record of any services an EOC participant 

receives during the project year from another Federal TRIO program or 

other federally funded program serving similar populations. This change 

will help ensure that the limited funds available under TRIO and other 

programs for disadvantaged populations are used effectively and 

efficiently by minimizing the duplication of services through 

coordination of activities.

 Change: A new Sec. 644.32(c)(4) has been added to require grantees 

to maintain a record of any services EOC participants receive during 

the project year from another Federal TRIO program or other federally 

supported program serving similar populations.

Project Director (final Sec. 644.32(d)(3))

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: For the reasons discussed in the preamble section on 

Project Director under the TS program (proposed Sec. 643.32(c)(3), 

final Sec. 643.32(d)(3)), we have revised proposed Sec. 644.32(c)(3) 
(final Sec. 644.32(d)(3)).

 Changes: We have revised proposed Sec. 644.32(c)(3) (final Sec. 

644.32(db)(3)) to clarify the standard the Secretary will use to 

consider requests for a waiver of the restriction on the number of 

programs a project director may administer.

[[Page 65739]]

Upward Bound (UB) Program (34 CFR Part 645)

Who is eligible for a grant? (Sec. 645.2)

 Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns about the 

eligibility of secondary schools to apply for UB funding and the impact 

this change would have on the UB program. Specifically, commenters were 

concerned with how secondary schools might use UB funding. For example, 

some commenters questioned whether secondary schools would be able to 

fully implement an UB project for the intended population of students 

and expressed concern that secondary schools would try to use the UB 

funds to support activities and services for students not eligible for 

UB or to fund programs or initiatives previously supported with State 

or local funding. One commenter recommended making a secondary school 

eligible only if there is no institution of higher education that is 

interested in and capable of conducting a UB program in the target 

area. The commenter argued that this proposal would allow some 

secondary schools to be eligible for grants but would retain the 

current program structure in which UB grants are awarded primarily to 

postsecondary institutions.

 Discussion: The Department does not have the authority to make the 

changes recommended by the commenters because the HEOA amended section 

402A(b)(1) of the HEA to eliminate the restriction on the eligibility 

of a secondary school to receive UB grants. The commenters' suggestions 

are inconsistent with the HEA.

 Changes: None.

Who is eligible to participate in an Upward Bound Project? (Sec. 

645.3)

 Comment: One commenter noted that, to reflect the HEA, Sec. 645.3 

should be amended to include as eligible participants individuals who 

are at high-risk of academic failure. One commenter also noted that 

although section 402C(e)(5) of the HEA states that no student will be 

denied participation in an UB project because he or she will enter the 

project after the ninth grade, Sec. 645.3(d) still includes the 

requirement that a participant, at the time of initial selection, must 

not have entered the twelfth grade. In addition, one commenter 

suggested adding ``not currently enrolled in postsecondary education'' 

to the participant eligibility criteria for VUB participants to clarify 

that veterans currently enrolled in postsecondary education are not 

eligible project participants.

 Discussion: We agree that Sec. 645.3(b) needs to be amended to 

include an individual who has a high risk for academic failure as an 

eligible UB participant (see definitions in Sec. 645.6 for individual 

who has a high risk for academic failure and a veteran who has a high 

risk for academic failure). We also agree with the commenter that we 

need to amend Sec. 645.3(d); therefore, we have removed the words 

``but has not entered the twelfth grade.'' Therefore, if a senior is 
otherwise eligible, he or she could participate in an UB program during 

his or her last year of high school.

 Nonetheless, the Secretary encourages regular UB and UBMS projects 

to select students before their senior year. A recent report entitled 

Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math-Science Program Outcomes for 

Participants Expected to Graduate High School in 2004-05 \4\ concluded 

that one consistent predictor of postsecondary enrollment among regular 

UB and UBMS participants is the length of their participation in the UB 

program. Those students who participated in the program longer were 

more likely to continue on to postsecondary education. For example, 

55.3 percent of those who participated in the program for less than one 

year went on to college compared with 91.2 percent of those who 

participated for three years or more.

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

 \4\ Report available at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/ub-ubms-outcomes-2004.doc.

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

 With regard to the commenter's recommendation regarding veterans in 

postsecondary education, we have not made any changes to this section 

of the final regulations because this issue was not addressed in the 

NPRM. However, it is the Department's view that VUB projects should not 

serve individuals enrolled in postsecondary education as the statutory 

goal of the UB program is to ``generate the skills and motivation 

necessary for success in education beyond secondary school.'' Veterans 

served by VUB who enroll in postsecondary education can be served by 

the SSS program or other programs designed to provide academic support 

services for individuals enrolled in programs of postsecondary 

education.

 Changes: We have added a new paragraph (b)(3) to Sec. 645.3 to 

include as eligible participants individuals who have a high risk for 

academic failure, and we have removed Sec. 645.3(d) which required 

that participants be initially selected to participate in the UB 

program prior to entering the twelfth grade.

What definitions apply to the Upward Bound Program? (Sec. 645.6)

 Comment: Comments were received concerning several definitions. 

Some commenters requested that the Department add definitions for the 

terms ``postsecondary completion,'' ``postsecondary,'' ``postsecondary 

institution,'' and ``postsecondary degree.'' Several comments were 

received regarding the definition of the term individual who has a high 

risk for academic failure. A few commenters requested clarification on 

whether one or all four of the ``high risk'' criteria in the definition 

had to be met for an individual to meet the definition. Other 

commenters expressed concern that the proposed criteria for high risk 

include using grade point averages (GPAs) (see paragraph (4) of the 

definition) and the State assessments in reading, language arts, and 

math (see paragraphs (1) and (2) of the definition) because these 

measures are not standard across the country.

 Some commenters also questioned the proposed criteria related to 

the math courses completed by the ninth grade (see paragraph (3) of the 

definition). These commenters stated that most incoming ninth graders 

have not taken geometry and thus, almost all ninth graders could 

qualify for UB based on this definition. A few commenters suggested 

that qualifiers are needed in this paragraph to take into account the 
wide variety of math course sequences utilized by high schools and 

because situations can occur that may cause a participant to be deemed 

high risk even if he or she is on track to graduate. For instance, one 

commenter argued that, based on the proposed definition, a tenth grade 

student could be selected to participate in the UB project because he 

or she had not completed geometry until the end of the tenth grade, 

even though the student was making normal progress in completing the 

sequence of math courses needed for high school graduation and 

postsecondary enrollment.

 A few commenters stated that the definition of individual who has a 

high-risk for academic failure should be removed because UB already 

requires that two-thirds of all participants be both low income and 

first generation. These commenters suggested that this definition would 

create an additional burden on grantees to monitor and select an 

additional student subgroup, and might compromise the program mission 

by opening eligibility to students who are not low income or first 

generation and moving the program

[[Page 65740]]

from college preparation to drop-out prevention.

 We also received many comments on the definition of a rigorous 

secondary school program of study. We address these comments in detail 

in the summary of comments, discussion, and changes sections for Sec. 

643.7 (TS program) earlier in this preamble.

 Discussion: The Department believes the terms ``postsecondary 

completion,'' ``postsecondary,'' ``postsecondary institution,'' and 

``postsecondary degree'' are commonly understood and therefore do not 

need to be defined in these regulations. However, when these terms are 

used in the standard PE objective, the Department will provide 

additional guidance in the published application materials as to how 

these terms apply to the PE outcome criteria.

 With regard to the definition of the term individual who has a high 

risk for academic failure (regular UB participant), we use the word 

``or'' between paragraphs (3) and (4) of the definition to convey that 

an individual only needs to meet one of the criteria to be considered 

an individual who has a high risk for academic failure.

 We do not view the fact that State assessments are not standardized 

across the country to be a problem because individuals who do not meet 

proficiency levels on their State's tests or who have low GPAs are at 

risk of not completing high school or not being prepared for 

postsecondary education. We acknowledge that the traditional sequence 

of high school math courses includes taking algebra in ninth grade and 

geometry in tenth grade; therefore, a student should not be considered 

an individual who has a high risk for academic failure if he or she 

does not complete geometry until the end of tenth grade.

 Changes: We have revised paragraph (3) of the definition of 

individual who has a high risk for academic failure to clarify that a 

student is at high risk for academic failure if he or she has not 

successfully completed pre-algebra or algebra by the beginning of the 

tenth grade.

What services do all Upward Bound projects provide? (Sec. 645.11)

 Comment: A large number of commenters recommended that, under 

proposed Sec. 645.11(a)(1) and (a)(2), the term ``postsecondary'' be 

deleted. In the case of proposed Sec. 645.11(a)(1), the commenters 
believed that academic tutoring provided in high school seldom has a 

direct impact on student success in postsecondary level coursework. 

Commenters also stated that the regulations are unclear as to the 

timeframe in which the tutoring must be provided; they asked whether it 

would be while the student is enrolled in high school or in a 

postsecondary program, or both. In the case of proposed Sec. 

645.11(a)(2), the commenters expressed concern that there are so many 

postsecondary institutions that UB participants attend, it would be 

hard to provide advice and assistance for specific course selection and 

that it would be best for participants to receive this service from the 

postsecondary institution. Commenters also stated that it was unclear 

whether UB staff would be required to continue to advise a student on 

postsecondary course selection after the student graduates from the UB 

program, whether there would be additional funding to provide the 

services, and whether served students who graduated would be counted in 

the number of students served each year.

 Several commenters expressed concerns about proposed Sec. 

645.11(a)(5), which would require that UB projects provide high school 

dropouts guidance and assistance in secondary school reentry, 

alternative education and GED programs, and entry into postsecondary 

education. Some asked that the section be eliminated because UB 

projects do not usually serve dropouts. Other commenters asked for 

further guidance on how the services would be provided and whether 

individuals receiving these services would be considered UB 

participants. In regard to proposed Sec. 645.11(b)(4) and (b)(5), one 

commenter indicated that it is too difficult to provide instruction in 

composition and literature in the summer and it should be left up to 

the program to decide which instruction to do. Another commenter 

suggested replacing the term ``foreign language'' with ``world 

language'' or ``second language.''

 Under proposed Sec. 645.11(a)(6), commenters requested 

clarification on the financial and economic literacy services that 

grantees must provide to students' parents.

 Discussion: This section of the regulations includes the statutory 

list of ``Required Services'' a UB project must provide under section 

402C(b) of the HEA. We cannot include in these regulations changes that 

would alter the statutory requirements. The Department, however, plans 

to provide applicants with additional written guidance on how to 

respond to the new program requirements and the evaluation criteria in 

the published application materials.

 Changes: None.

What services may regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math-Science 

projects provide? (Sec. 645.12)

 Comment: One commenter suggested including language to state that a 

project may provide other activities designed to meet the purposes of 

the legislation because this could encourage new and innovative 

approaches. A few commenters lauded on-campus residential programs as 

being the most important UB activity and recommended that the 

applications that propose a summer on-campus residential program be 

given additional points in the application process. One commenter also 

suggested that on-campus residential programs be designated as a 

required service.

 Discussion: Section 645.12 includes the statutory list of 

``Permissible Services'' an UB project may provide. The regulations do 

not prohibit grantees from offering additional services to meet the 
goals of the program, and grantees may offer additional services not 

explicitly mentioned as required or permissible. We have revised Sec. 

645.12 to reflect that intent more clearly.

 Changes: We have revised Sec. 645.12 by adding a new paragraph (g) 

to state that grantees may provide other services that are consistent 

with the purposes and goals of the UB program.

What additional services may Veterans Upward Bound projects provide? 

(Sec. 645.15(d))

 Comment: Several commenters asked whether the additional services 

that Veterans Upward Bound projects provide are mandatory or 

permissible.

 In addition, one commenter suggested eliminating Sec. 645.15(d) 

because it appeared to be redundant with the requirements in Sec. 

645.11(b), which requires that all UB grantees, including VUB grantees, 

provide instruction in mathematics through pre-calculus and in 

laboratory science. The commenter also recommended adding to the list 

of additional services for VUB grantees in Sec. 645.15: exposure to 

cultural events, academic programs, and other activities not usually 

available to disadvantaged veterans because these services are 

permissible for the low-income, first-generation students served by UB 

and UBMS projects. The commenter argued that providing these 

opportunities and experiences would positively influence a veteran's 

postsecondary and career decisions.

 Discussion: We agree that the section heading of Sec. 645.15 

incorrectly suggests that the services in the regulations are required 

services. We have revised the section heading to clarify that the

[[Page 65741]]

services are voluntary. Because section 402C(c) of the HEA requires all 

UB projects to provide math and science instruction and section 402C(d) 

of the HEA further permits math and science preparation for veterans, 

we understand why some commenters viewed the new language in Sec. 

645.15(d) as being redundant with Sec. 645.11(b). However, Sec. 

645.15(d) refers to special services that could supplement the 

project's instructional program in math and science. Accordingly and to 

be consistent with the statutory language, we are not changing Sec. 

645.15(d).

 The Secretary does not agree with the request to include in Sec. 

645.15 exposure to cultural events, academic programs, and other 

activities. The list of permissible services in section 402C(d) of the 

HEA only identifies one of the permissible services as applicable 

specifically to veterans (see section 402C(d)(6) of the HEA) and that 

service is the one reflected in Sec. 645.15(d). Further, section 

402C(d)(1) of the HEA is clear that services, such as exposure to 

cultural events, are meant specifically for disadvantaged youth.

 Changes: We have revised the section heading for Sec. 645.15 by 

replacing the word ``do'' with the word ``may'' to clarify that the 

listed services are voluntary.

How many applications for an Upward Bound award may an eligible 

applicant submit? (Sec. 645.20)

 Comment: One commenter requested that Sec. 645.20 clarify what 

qualifies as ``another designated different population.''
 Discussion: As provided in Sec. 645.20(b), the Secretary will 

designate, in the Federal Register notice inviting applications, the 

different populations for which an applicant may submit a separate 

application. This provision gives the Department the flexibility to 

designate the different populations for each competition based upon 

changing national needs.

 Changes: None.

What assurances must an applicant include in an application? 

Participant Eligibility (Sec. 645.21)

 Comment: Several commenters stated that allowing one-third of 

participants to be eligible based upon a high risk for academic failure 

would change the fundamental purpose of the UB program with regard to 

participant eligibility for services. Many commenters stated that 

adding the high risk for academic failure assurance in Sec. 

645.21(a)(2) would open the door for children of affluent families to 

receive services over more needy students.

 Discussion: Section 402C(e)(1) of the HEA states that not less than 

two-thirds of youth participating in the project must be low-income 

individuals who are first generation college students and that the 

remaining participants must be low-income individuals, first generation 

college students, or students who have a high risk for academic 

failure. Section 645.21 reflects this statutory requirement. We note, 

however, that students who have a high risk for academic failure are 

just one of the groups that can be included in the one-third 

calculation. Therefore, a UB project is not required to serve students 

who have high risk of academic failure and may choose to serve only 

low-income and potential first-generation college students.

 Changes: None.

What assurances must an applicant include in an application? 

Coordination Among Outreach Programs Serving Similar Populations 

(Sec. Sec. 645.21(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(3))

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: Based on comments we received on proposed Sec. 

643.11(b) for the Talent Search program--(Coordination Among Outreach 

Programs Serving Similar Populations), we have revised Sec. 

645.21(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(3), regarding the coordination of efforts 

necessary to minimize the duplication of services and promote 

collaborations so that more students can be served. We believe that 

these changes, which we have made across the TRIO programs, will help 

ensure that the limited funds available under TRIO and other programs 

for disadvantaged students are used effectively and efficiently by 

minimizing the duplication of services through coordination of 

activities.

 Changes: We have revised Sec. 645.21(a)(4), (b)(4) and (c)(3) to 

clarify that UB projects must collaborate with other Federal TRIO 

projects, GEAR UP projects, or programs serving similar populations 

that are serving the same target schools or target area to minimize the 

duplication of services and promote collaborations so that more 

students can be served.

What selection criteria does the Secretary use? Objectives (Academic 

Performance) (Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii))
 Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns regarding the 

selection criteria in Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(i) (Academic performance, as 

measured by grade point average (GPA)) and Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(ii) 

(Academic performance, as measured by standardized test scores). The 

commenters argued that the points assigned for the GPA objective should 

be reduced. The commenters stated that it is difficult to increase GPAs 

of high-risk students by even a small percentage. Also, as students 

undertake a more rigorous curriculum their GPAs may increase or 

decrease over time. Commenters also asked if the projects could use a 

weighted GPA for those students taking rigorous courses. One commenter 

expressed concern over using State assessments, on a national level, as 

a measurement of performance because of the differences in State 

assessments throughout the country. The commenter recommended that the 

Department disseminate a list of approved standardized tests to promote 

consistency among projects reporting from one year to the next.

 Discussion: We do not agree with the commenters' suggestion to 

reduce the points assigned to the academic performance as measured by 

GPA criterion. The 1.5 points for this criterion represents only 10 

percent of the total PE points a project could earn; reducing the 

points further would go against the goals of the HEA.

 The cumulative GPA for this selection criteria should be calculated 

on all courses taken based on a four-point scale. The GPA may be 

weighted for students completing honors or Advanced Placement courses. 

If the target schools use other scales, the GPA should be converted to 

the extent possible to a four-point scale.

 In regard to the commenter's suggestion regarding Sec. 

645.31(b)(1)(ii) the Department does not believe it is appropriate to 

provide a list of approved standardized tests because we do not have 

the authority to regulate State assessments.

 Changes: None.

What selection criteria does the Secretary use? Objectives (Secondary 

school graduation and completion of rigorous secondary school program 

of study) (Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(iv))

 Comment: In Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(iii) (Secondary school graduation), 

one commenter recommended inserting the words ``retention and'' after 

the words ``Secondary school'' and before ``graduation'' to more 

accurately reflect the language in the statute. Another commenter 

suggested adding ``or a GED diploma'' after ``regular secondary school 

diploma'', to mirror Sec. 645.11(a)(5)(iii), which includes entry into 

general educational development (GED) programs as a required service.

 In regard to Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(iv) (Completion of rigorous 

secondary school program of study), several

[[Page 65742]]

commenters stated that assisting students to complete a rigorous 

secondary school program of study might not be realistic for all 

participants, given that some UB grantees work with English Language 

Learners (ELL) and high-risk students. The commenters stated that the 

distinct needs of these populations were not adequately considered when 

imposing completion of a rigorous secondary school program of study as 

one of the program's outcome criteria. One commenter argued that this 

criterion may have the unintended consequence of limiting a project's 

ability to enroll these groups of students. Another commenter noted 

that some students do not complete a rigorous program because their 
educational goals include a technical or associate's degree, and their 

school system places them on a non-rigorous graduation track. Another 

commenter stated that the goal of completing a rigorous secondary 

school program of study is for participants to be eligible for the 

Academic Competitiveness Grants (ACG); however, this grant program is 

being phased-out. The commenter asked whether the criteria for the 

rigorous secondary school program of study will remain, even if the 

participants will no longer be eligible for ACG.

 Discussion: We agree with the recommendation to add the words 

``retention and'' to the secondary school graduation criterion in Sec. 

645.31(b)(1)(iii) to be consistent with the outcome criterion in the 

statute and the PE criterion in Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(iii). However, to 

remain consistent with the statutory language regarding the UB program 

outcomes in section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA, we do not agree with the 

recommendation to add the words ``or a GED diploma''.

 Under Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(iv) (Completion of a rigorous secondary 

school program of study), we are not requiring projects to serve only 

participants in a rigorous secondary school program of study. The 

Department agrees that some English Language Learners, high-risk 

students, or students in a vocational program of study might not be 

ready to undertake a rigorous secondary school program of study or may 

not find such a rigorous program of study relevant to their educational 

goals. However, to be consistent with statutory intent, the UB project 

should encourage all UB students to undertake a rigorous curriculum. In 

addition, section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the HEA states that the 

participants who complete a rigorous secondary school program of study 

should be eligible for programs such as ACG. Therefore, the 

discontinuation of ACG does not impact the requirement related to a 

rigorous secondary school program of study as defined in Sec. 645.6.

 Changes: We have amended Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(iii) to refer to 

secondary school retention and graduation.

What selection criteria does the Secretary use? Objectives 

(Postsecondary completion) (Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(vi))

 Comments: In regard to the criterion in Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(vi) 

(Postsecondary completion), several commenters suggested that 

postsecondary completion should include a baccalaureate degree, 

associate's degree, or a certificate of completion of a postsecondary 

program. Other commenters asked if the definition of postsecondary 

completion, as used in this criterion, included the attainment of a 

four-year or two-year degree. If either degree is satisfactory, one 

commenter stated that a project that sent students to a two-year 

institution versus a four-year institution would be able to establish a 

more ambitious objective due to the fact that it is easier to track 

participants for two years rather than for four years. Many commenters 

argued that UB is not authorized or funded to continue working with 

students once they complete the project. In addition, some commenters 

stated that a program geared toward high school students should not be 

held responsible for a participant's completion of a postsecondary 

education. The commenters suggested that persistence in postsecondary 

education was a better measurement of project success. Commenters also 

stated that there are no selection criteria for the Plan of Operation 

or Budget sections of the application to address on-going follow-up 

support of graduates. One commenter requested that the Department 

clarify how it will determine the parameters and number or percentages 

for tracking participants.
 Discussion: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(vi) of the HEA requires the 

Department to use the postsecondary completion criterion, to the extent 

practicable, in evaluating the quality and effectiveness of a UB 

project. Due to the UB program's intensive, college-preparatory nature, 

we do not agree with the commenters who suggest that any postsecondary 

credential, including a certificate, should be included in 

postsecondary completion measurements. For the purpose of awarding PE 

points for projects' success under the postsecondary completion outcome 

criterion, the Department considers a program of postsecondary 

education to be a combination of courses and related activities whose 

curriculum is designed primarily for students who are beyond the 

compulsory age for high school and which leads to the attainment of an 

associate's or bachelor's degree, and which excludes postsecondary 

certificates and vocational and adult basic education programs.

 The Secretary plans, subject to meeting the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, to establish a standard objective 

related to postsecondary completion in the application package for the 

UB program. Further, each applicant will establish in its application 

the project's target with regard to postsecondary completion. The 

baseline data the applicant provides in the Need section of the 

application will provide the peer reviewers with the information needed 

to assess the extent to which the applicant's target for the objective 

is both ambitious and attainable.

 We understand the commenters' concerns about not having the 

authority or resources to provide follow-up support for UB graduates as 

they progress through postsecondary education; however, the new 

statutory outcome criteria effectively requires that UB projects track 

the academic progress of participants through postsecondary completion. 

Section 645.31(c)(10) (Plan of Operation) requires applicants to have a 

follow-up plan for tracking graduates of UB projects as they enter and 

continue in postsecondary education. Further, Sec. 645.31(f) (Budget 

and cost effectiveness) requires applicants to be evaluated on the 

extent to which the budget for the project is adequate to support 

planned project services and activities. Therefore, an applicant may 

include in the proposed budget for the project costs related to 

tracking the academic progress of former participants through 

postsecondary education.

 Changes: None.

What selection criteria does the Secretary use? Applicant and Community 

Support: Resources secured through written commitments (Sec. 

645.31(d)(2))

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: Based on comments we received on proposed Sec. 

643.21(d)(2) (Applicant and community support) for the TS program, we 

have revised Sec. 645.31(d)(2) to ensure consistency across programs. 

A detailed discussion of the comments and rationale for the changes is 

included earlier in this preamble, in the summary of comments, 

discussion, and changes related to Sec. 643.21(d)(2).

[[Page 65743]]

 Changes: We have revised Sec. 645.31(d)(2) to provide that the 

Secretary will evaluate the applicant and community support for the 

proposed project on the basis on the extent to which the applicant can 

show that it has resources secured through written commitments from 
community partners. This section also requires that: (i) An applicant 

that is an institution of higher education must include in its 

application commitments from the target schools and community 

organizations; (ii) an applicant that is a secondary school must 

include in its commitments from institutions of higher education, 

community organizations, and, as appropriate, other secondary schools 

and the school district; and (iii) an applicant that is a community 

organization must include in its application commitments from the 

target schools and institutions of higher education.

How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience? Regular Upward Bound 

and Upward Bound Math and Science Centers (Sec. 645.32(e)(1))

 Comment: In regard to proposed Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(ii)(A) (Academic 

Performance, as measured by grade point average (GPA)), one commenter 

suggested that the GPA of 2.5 be changed to 2.0 to be consistent with 

the Federal Pell Grant's requirement that students who receive 

financial aid maintain a 2.0 GPA. Several commenters requested 

clarification on whether the GPA standard was weighted or not weighted.

 In regard to proposed Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(ii)(B) (Academic 

Performance, as measured by standardized test scores), one commenter 

requested that the Department publish an approved list of standardized 

tests to provide for consistency in reporting among grantees. The 

commenter stated that the differences in the various State assessments 

do not allow for consistent measurements of performance of UB projects.

 In regard to proposed Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(iii), which defines PE 

points for secondary school retention and graduation, one commenter 

suggested that we add the phrase ``or a general educational development 

(GED) diploma'' after the phrase ``regular secondary school diploma''.

 In regard to proposed Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(iv), which defines PE 

points for a rigorous secondary school program of study, one commenter 

stated that it is impossible for grantees to ensure that students 

complete a rigorous secondary school program of study, given that some 

school districts do not offer rigorous courses. Another commenter 

emphasized that this PE criterion would limit the ability of projects 

to work with a high-risk population, as this population may not have 

the ability to undertake a rigorous secondary school program of study.

 Several commenters asked that Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(v) be changed to 

permit participants' postsecondary enrollment to take place by the fall 

or spring term immediately following the school year, instead of by the 

fall term. Commenters stated that some participants need to delay 

enrollment in postsecondary education for several reasons, including 

the need to work to support their efforts to enroll, family 

responsibilities, changes in the economy, and the fact that 

institutions may be granting acceptance for the spring semester instead 

of the fall semester due to budget cuts and the large number of 

applicants. These commenters argued that their recommended change would 

allow grantees to count summer graduates and GED recipients who 

matriculate in the spring in the relevant calculations for PE points.

 In regard to proposed Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(vi), which discusses the 

PE criteria based on postsecondary completion, several commenters 

stated that tracking participants through postsecondary completion is 

impractical. These commenters stated that postsecondary completion 

should not be assessed as part of PE, due to the fact that UB grantees 

do not provide services during the participant's postsecondary tenure 

and also because it is difficult to accurately track participants who 

may drop out, enroll in several different institutions consecutively or 
simultaneously, or use different names to enroll. Commenters suggested 

using postsecondary persistence instead of postsecondary completion as 

the PE criterion. If the criterion remains, the commenters recommended 

changing the point value to 0.5.

 Discussion: In response to the commenters' recommendation that we 

permit participants' postsecondary enrollment to take place by the fall 

or spring term immediately following the school year, instead of by the 

fall term, we have decided to remove from the proposed regulations the 

point of measurement (e.g., fall term). Further, we also have decided 

to remove from Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(ii)(A) and (e)(1)(ii)(B) (e.g., State 

assessments) the GPA standard (e.g., 2.5). Instead, the Department will 

establish the point of measurement and the standards for measuring 

academic performance when establishing the standard PE objectives for 

each grant competition. These changes will give the Department the 

flexibility to adjust the standards of measurement and period of 

measurement for UB PE objectives based on changing conditions. The 

Secretary plans, subject to meeting the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, to establish standard objectives for each of the 

PE criteria in the application package for the UB program.

 With regard to the requests for clarification regarding the 

cumulative GPA, as discussed in the response to comments regarding 

Sec. 645.31(b)(1)(i) (Objectives), the GPA should be calculated on all 

courses taken based on a four-point scale. The GPA may be weighted for 

students completing honors or Advanced Placement courses. If the target 

schools use other scales, the GPA should be converted to the extent 

possible to a four-point scale.

 With regard to proposed Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(iv), regarding 

completion of a rigorous secondary school program of study, we 

acknowledge that not all UB participants may be ready to undertake a 

rigorous secondary school program of study; however, UB participants 

should be encouraged to complete a rigorous secondary school program of 

study because research suggests that students who take rigorous classes 

in high school are more likely to enroll in and complete postsecondary 

education which are the goals of the UB program. A 2003 GAO report, for 

instance, reported that students taking a highly rigorous secondary 

school program of study were 1.7 times more likely to earn a bachelor's 

degree than students who took a basic high school curriculum.\5\

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

 \5\ GAO, ``Additional Efforts Could Help Education With its 

Education Goals,'' May 2003, available at http://www.gao.gov/

new.items/d03568.pdf.

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

 With regard to the postsecondary completion criterion in proposed 

Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(vi), section 402A(f)(3)(A)(vi) of the HEA requires 

the Department to use this criterion, to the extent practicable, in 

evaluating the quality and effectiveness of an UB project for the 

purpose of assessing PE. The Secretary does not agree with the 

commenters' suggestion to lower the points allocated to the 

postsecondary completion criterion. The 1.5 points represent only 10 

percent of the total PE points a project can earn and is an appropriate 

value to place on this criterion.

 We have made a number of clarifying changes to Sec. 

645.32(e)(1)(ii) through (vi). First, we have clarified that when we

[[Page 65744]]
refer to ``project participants'' or ``current participants'', we mean 

those participants served during the project year. For consistency with 

the regulatory language used for the PE criteria in Sec. 643.22 (TS) 

and Sec. 644.22 (EOC), we have deleted the words ``the percentage of'' 

where it appeared in proposed Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(ii) through (vi).

 Changes: The Secretary has amended Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(ii) through 

(vi) to provide that for purposes of the PE evaluation of Regular 

Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science Centers grants awarded 

after January 1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on 

the basis of the following outcome criteria:

Academic Performance (Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(ii))

 (A) Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective 

with regard to participants served during the project year who had a 

cumulative GPA at the end of the school year that was not less than the 

GPA specified in the approved objective. (1.5 points)

 (B) Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective 

with regard to participants served during the project period who met 

the academic performance levels on standardized tests as specified in 

the approved objectives. (1.5 points)

Secondary School Retention and Graduation (645.32(e)(1)(iii))

 Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to participants served during the project year who returned the 

next school year to secondary school or graduated from secondary school 

with a regular secondary school diploma. (3 points)

Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study (Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(iv))

 Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to current and prior participants with an expected high school 

graduation date in the school year who completed a rigorous secondary 

school program of study. (1.5 points)

Postsecondary Enrollment (Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(v))

 Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to current and prior participants with an expected high school 

graduation date in the school year who enrolled in a program of 

postsecondary education within the time period specified in the 

approved objective. (3 points)

Postsecondary Completion (Sec. 645.32(e)(1)(vi))

 Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to postsecondary enrollees who attained a postsecondary degree 

within the number of years specified in the approved objective. (1.5 

points)

How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience? Veterans Upward Bound 

(VUB) (Sec. 645.32(d)(2) and (e)(2))

 Comment: Several commenters requested that the Department use the 
number of VUB participants that completed the project during the 

project year, instead of the approved number of participants or the 

actual number of participants served in a given year, if greater than 

the approved number of participants, as the denominator for the 

academic improvement on a standardized test criterion for PE points in 

Sec. 645.32(e)(2)(ii). One commenter argued that VUB is an open-entry, 

open-exit program and that veterans who enroll may not be able to 

complete all needed academic services during a single reporting period, 

for a variety of reasons. Requiring veterans to take a post-test prior 

to receiving all appropriate academic services would not yield an 

accurate assessment of the grantee's success. The commenter contended 

that because all participants will not be able to take a pre-test, 

receive all necessary services, and take a post-test during a single 

project year, this criterion should only measure those participants 

that completed the project during the reporting period.

 With regard to the postsecondary enrollment criterion for PE 

points, several commenters requested that Sec. 645.32(e)(2)(iv) be 

changed to permit participants' postsecondary enrollment by the fall or 

spring term immediately following program completion. The change would 

allow projects to count program graduates who matriculate to 

postsecondary education on a non-traditional timeline.

 Discussion: For the reasons set forth in the preceding section, we 

have made a number of clarifying changes to Sec. 645.32(e)(2) to 

mirror the changes we made in Sec. 645.32(e)(1). These changes clarify 

that the criteria relate to participants served during the project year 

and that the Department will establish the point of measurement for the 

postsecondary enrollment and postsecondary completion criteria when 

establishing the standard PE objectives for each grant competition. 

Further, the changes clarify that for Sec. 645.32(e)(2)(ii) (Academic 

improvement on standardized tests) will be assessed only for those 

participants who completed the VUB program during the project year.

 Changes: The Secretary has amended Sec. 645.32(e)(2) to provide 

that, for purposes of the PE evaluation of Veterans Upward Bound grants 

awarded after January 1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's 

PE on the basis of the following outcome criteria:

Academic Improvement on Standardized Test (Sec. 645.32(e)(2)(ii))

 Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to participants served during the project year who completed 

their Veterans Upward Bound educational program during the project year 

and who improved their academic performance as measured by a 

standardized test taken by participants before and after receiving 

services from the project. (3 points)

Education Program Retention and Completion (Sec. 645.32(e)(2)(iii))

 Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to participants who were served during the project year who 

remained in or completed their Veterans Upward Bound educational 

program. (3 points)

Postsecondary enrollment (Sec. 645.32(e)(2)(iv))

 Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to the participants who completed their Veterans Upward Bound 

educational program and enrolled in an institution of higher education 
within the time period specified in the approved objective. (3 points)

Postsecondary completion (Sec. 645.32(e)(2)(v))

 Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to postsecondary enrollees who completed a program of 

postsecondary education within the number of years specified in the 

approved objective. (3 points)

What are allowable costs? (Sec. 645.40)

 Comment: Several commenters suggested that Sec. 645.40(i) be 

changed to permit a grantee to pay tuition costs for up to six credit

hours of postsecondary courses in an academic year or summer session 

for a student if tuition waivers are unavailable. These commenters 

argued that such a change would encourage dual enrollment for UB 

students still in high school. Current regulations permit the payment 

of tuition for postsecondary credit only for

[[Page 65745]]

participants of the UB summer bridge component. The commenters noted 

that this change is especially necessary if the target schools served 

by the UB program do not provide a rigorous course of study. Commenters 

suggested that because UB projects, like TS projects, will be evaluated 

on the extent to which participants complete a rigorous secondary 

school program of study, UB projects should be allowed to pay for 

tuition, when needed, for secondary students taking a rigorous 

curriculum.

 In addition, commenters suggested adding the phrase ``service 

agreement'' after the word ``lease'' in proposed Sec. 645.40(n) and 

(o) because many technology systems may require repairs and software 

packages that are provided pursuant to service agreements.

 Finally, one commenter recommended revising Sec. 645.40(i) that 

permits UB projects to pay tuition costs for postsecondary credit 

courses for participants in the summer bridge program by striking the 

phrase ``at the host institution'' and adding ``educational supplies 

for participants'' to this provision.

 Discussion: The Department agrees that UB projects should be 

permitted to pay tuition costs, in certain situations, for participants 

taking a rigorous secondary school program of study, but does not agree 

that all dual enrollment courses should be considered part of a 

rigorous secondary school program of study. In addition, the Department 

agrees to add payment for a service agreement to the allowable costs.

 We do not agree with the commenter's recommendations to remove the 

phrase ``at the host institution'' from Sec. 645.40(i)). Students 

participating in the summer bridge program are still UB participants; 

therefore, we believe the UB project will continue to provide services 

to these students while they are taking postsecondary courses during 

the summer bridge program. Therefore, we believe these UB bridge 

participants should take courses at the host institution where the 

project can provide additional support services. The costs for required 

textbooks and lab fees for bridge students taking postsecondary courses 

are allowable.

 Changes: We have amended proposed Sec. 645.40(n) and (o) to add 

the cost of an equipment service agreement as an allowable cost. We 

also have amended Sec. 643.40 by adding a new paragraph (q) to allow 
UB projects to pay, under certain conditions, the tuition for courses 

that will allow project participants to complete a rigorous secondary 

school program of study.

What are Upward Bound stipends? (Sec. 645.42)

 Comment: Several commenters requested that the $40 stipend that may 

be paid to participants be increased to $60. One commenter suggested 

increasing the $60 stipend, which is available during the summer school 

recess, to $80. The commenter also recommended that work-study 

positions be made available year-round and that a participant should be 

able to get the $300 stipend for any three months during the year. The 

commenter argued that these changes would increase participation in the 

work-study component and thereby increase program retention and 

persistence.

 Discussion: Section 402C(f) of the HEA provides that youth 

participating in a UB project may be paid stipends not in excess of $60 

per month during the summer school recess, for a period not to exceed 

three months. During the remaining months, youth participating in the 

project may receive stipends not in excess of $40. The HEA does not 

limit work-study to the summer school recess; it only stipulates that 

the stipend of $300 per month for youth participating in a work-study 

position may only be provided during the months of June, July, and 

August. We cannot include in these regulations changes that would alter 

the stipend dollar amount or timing of payment as provided in the HEA.

 Changes: None.

What other requirements must a grantee meet? (Sec. 645.43)

Number of Participants (Sec. 645.43(a))

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: As discussed in the preamble discussion on the number 

of participants under the TS program, we believe it is appropriate for 

the Secretary to identify the minimum and maximum grant award amounts 

and the minimum number of participants a project must serve each year 

of the grant cycle in the Federal Register notice inviting applications 

for a competition. We believe this is true for UB projects (along with 

EOC, SSS and McNair projects) as well. This practice will give the 

Department the flexibility to establish the minimum number of 

participants to be served based on the available resources and other 

priorities for each competition and to adjust these numbers for 

subsequent competitions based on our experience, changing priorities, 

and cost analyses.

 Changes: We have revised Sec. 645.43(a) to clarify that a grantee 

must serve at least the number of participants that the Secretary 

identifies in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the 

competition, and to state that through this notice, the Secretary 

provides the minimum and maximum grant award amounts for the 

competition.

Project Director (Final Sec. 645.43(b)(3))

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: For the reasons discussed in the section of this 

preamble on Project Director under the TS program (proposed Sec. 

643.32(c)(3), final Sec. 643.32(d)(3)), we have revised proposed Sec. 
645.43(a)(3) (final Sec. 645.43(b)(3)).

 Changes: We have revised proposed Sec. 645.43(a)(3) (final Sec. 

645.43(b)(3)) to clarify the standard the Secretary will use to 

consider requests for a waiver of the restriction on the number of 

programs a project director may administer.

Coordination Among Outreach Programs Serving Similar Populations (New 

Sec. 645.43(c)(5))

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: For the reasons discussed under Coordination Among 

Outreach Programs Serving Similar Populations (Sec. Sec. 645.21(a)(4), 

(b)(4), and (c)(3)), we have added language to Sec. 645.43 (What other 

requirements must a grantee meet?) to require UB grantees to maintain, 

to the extent practicable, a record of the services UB participants 

received during the project period from another TRIO program or other 

program serving the same populations as the UB program. We believe that 

these changes, which we have made across the TRIO programs, will help 

ensure that the limited funds available under TRIO and other programs 

for disadvantaged students are used effectively and efficiently by 

minimizing the duplication of services through coordination of 

activities.

 Changes: We have added new Sec. 645.43(c)(5) to require UB 

grantees to maintain, to the extent practicable, a record of any 

services UB participants receive during the project year from other 

Federal TRIO or federally funded programs serving the same populations 

as the UB program.

Student Support Services (SSS) (34 CFR Part 646)

What is the Student Support Services program? (Sec. 646.1)

 Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed reference to 

``college'' in paragraph (a) be replaced by a reference to 

``postsecondary educational institution.'' In addition, multiple 

commenters asked that the Department retain the current

[[Page 65746]]

references to low-income and first-generation students to highlight the 

target population of the SSS Program. These commenters asked that we 

not include the reference to ``groups that are traditionally 

underrepresented in postsecondary education,'' as reflected in proposed 

Sec. 646.1(c) as this reference could dilute the focus of the program.

 Discussion: The language in Sec. 646.1 has been changed to more 

closely track the language in section 402D(a) of the HEA. This 

statutory language appropriately reflects the focus of this program; 

for this reason, we do not believe any changes to this regulatory 

provision are necessary.

 Changes: None.

What activities and services does a project provide? Required Services 

(Sec. 646.4(a))

 Comment: Six commenters requested minor changes to the SSS list of 

required services in Sec. 646.4(a) to specify who should provide the 

services. For example, one commenter noted that assistance in 
completing financial aid applications could be provided by SSS advisors 

directly or in collaboration with staff in the financial aid office. 

Several commenters requested additional language specifying that 

graduate and professional school enrollment is an activity specific to 

four-year institutions. Two commenters requested that we change the 

language in proposed Sec. 646.4(a)(5) and (a)(6) from ``obtaining 

financial assistance for enrollment in'' to ``applying for financial 

aid.'' Two other commenters asked that we add specific language to this 

section to clarify that support for financial aid assistance and 

postsecondary course counseling could be given directly by TRIO 

professionals or through other services with the assistance of other 

offices as part of other services they provide.

 Discussion: We recognize that SSS projects may work with other 

offices and programs at the institution to provide the required 

services. However, we do not think it is necessary to regulate who 

specifically must provide the services or how those services must be 

provided. An applicant for a SSS grant must include its plan to provide 

services that address the goals and objectives of the project in the 

Plan of Operation section of its application (see Sec. 646.21(c)(4)).

 To clarify that graduate and professional school enrollment is an 

activity specific to four-year institutions, we have added language to 

Sec. 646.4(a)(5) that refers to participants enrolled in four-year 

institutions of higher education. This language will parallel the 

structure in paragraph (a)(6), which refers specifically to students 

enrolled in two-year institutions of higher education.

 We decline to revise this section to focus only on helping students 

with ``applying for financial aid,'' as requested by some commenters. 

The language in this section mirrors section 402D(b)(5) and (b)(6) of 

the HEA. In addition, although applying for financial aid may be the 

most important step in assisting a student in obtaining financial aid, 

the student may require assistance after the student submits his or her 

financial aid application; such assistance could include helping the 

student understand or accept a financial aid award. Therefore, we think 

it is important to retain the proposed regulatory language, which is 

broader and covers helping students in obtaining financial aid, because 

it encourages SSS grantees to continue assisting students throughout 

the entire financial aid process.

 Changes: We have revised Sec. 646.4(a)(5) to refer to activities 

designed to assist participants enrolled in four-year institutions of 

higher education in applying for admission to, and obtaining financial 

assistance for enrollment in, graduate and professional programs.

Permissible Services (Sec. 646.4(b))

 Comment: Many commenters requested that we revise Sec. 646.4(b) to 

clarify that grantees may provide additional activities that are not 

included in the list of permissible services in the HEA, provided that 

such activities assist grantees to meet the goals of the SSS program. 

These commenters expressed concern that, without such regulatory 

language, SSS projects could not offer these additional activities.

 Discussion: Section 646.4(b) incorporates language from section 

402D(c) of the HEA, which lists permissible services a SSS project may 

provide. The regulations do not prohibit grantees from offering 

additional services to meet the goals of the program, and grantees may 

offer additional services not explicitly listed as required or 

permissible. We have revised Sec. 646.4(b) to reflect that intent more 

clearly.
 Changes: We have revised Sec. 646.4 by adding a new paragraph 

(b)(7) to specifically state that SSS projects provide other services 

that are consistent with the purposes and goals of the SSS program.

What definitions apply? First Generation College Student (Sec. 

646.7(b))

 Comment: Commenters asked whether a student whose parent has a 

baccalaureate degree from a country other than the United States meets 

the definition of first generation college student in Sec. 646.7(b). 

The commenters noted that other countries may have different 

requirements for a baccalaureate degree that may not be equivalent to a 

U.S. baccalaureate degree. In addition, these commenters expressed 

concern that individuals who received their degrees in another country 

may be unable to assist their children with college entry and financial 

aid requirements for U.S. institutions of higher education, and that 

the SSS project could address this problem.

 Discussion: Under the TRIO Programs, the definition of firstgeneration college student is used to determine if an individual is 

eligible to participate in a TRIO project, the purpose of which is to 

identify individuals from families in which there is no family history 

of successfully pursuing a bachelor's degree. For individuals whose 

parents earned a bachelor's degree in another country, there is a 

family history of success in higher education, regardless of whether 

the requirements to receive the baccalaureate degree were different 

than those in the United States. For this reason, we do not believe 

that a student who has a parent with a baccalaureate degree from 

outside the United States should be eligible to participate in the SSS 

program.

 Changes: None.

What definitions apply? Low-Income Individual (Sec. 646.7(b))

 Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to what years' 

tax documents should be used to determine whether a student meets the 

definition of the term low-income individual under Sec. 646.7(b). The 

commenter suggested that the Department provide a chart to assist 

grantees in finding the information needed for them to determine an 

individual's low-income status. The commenter stated that doing so 

would help avoid confusion that occurs when the tax and calendar years 

do not match up with the academic year.

 Discussion: To document low-income status, tax documents from the 

calendar year preceding the academic year in which the student will 

begin to receive services should be used. For example, students who 

initially participate in a SSS project in the 2009-2010 academic year 

will have their low-income status

[[Page 65747]]

determined by using tax documents submitted to the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) for calendar year 2008. Also, the Department annually 

posts, on the TRIO Web site, a chart on Annual Income Levels for use by 

grantees in determining student eligibility. A grantee is only required 

to verify a student's low-income status prior to providing the first 

service to that student.

 Changes: None.
What assurances and other information must an applicant include in an 

application? SSS coordination with other projects (Sec. 646.11)

 Comment: Some commenters recommended that the SSS regulations 

require an applicant to provide an assurance that individuals receiving 

services from another SSS project will not receive the same services 

under the applicant's proposed project. The commenters argued that such 

an assurance would allow projects to serve more participants and, 

especially in light of the addition of new types of SSS projects, would 

prevent SSS projects on the same campus from serving the same students, 

and, therefore, fewer students overall. Furthermore, the commenters 

noted that the assurance would mirror a similar assurance required 

under the regulations for the TS, EOC, and UB programs.

 Discussion: We agree with the commenters. Current TRIO regulations 

that establish age and academic level criteria for participation in 

each program ensure that there is no overlap in services between SSS 

and the pre-college TRIO programs, such as regular UB. However, it is 

now possible that a single institution could have multiple SSS projects 

and a McNair project. We are, therefore, adding language, in Sec. 

646.11(c), to address the commenters' concern. This new language, 

clarifies that a student receiving benefits from one SSS project is not 

eligible to receive services from another SSS project at any one time. 

Further, under Sec. 646.11(c), the SSS project must collaborate with 

other SSS and McNair projects and other State and institutional 

programs at the grantee-institution so that more students can be 

served. Under this provision, a student may leave one SSS project and 

join another at the same institution, as long as the student's 

participation in each project is only counted for the performance 

period during the time he or she is actually receiving services from 

that particular project.

 Changes: We have amended Sec. 646.11 to include a new paragraph 

(c) that requires an applicant to assure the Secretary in the 

application that a student will not be served by more than one SSS 

project at any one time and that the SSS project will collaborate with 

other SSS and McNair projects and other State and institutional 

programs at the grantee-institution so that more students can be 

served.

What assurances and other information must an applicant include in an 

application? Providing Financial Assistance to Participants (Sec. 

646.11(b))

 Comment: A number of commenters requested that the Secretary change 

Sec. 646.11(b)(1) to eliminate the requirement that applicant describe 

their efforts and past history in meeting the full financial need of 

each student in the project to requiring an applicant to offer each 

student sufficient financial assistance to meet their full financial 

need. The commenters stated that it is unreasonable to expect SSS 

projects to have sufficient funding to meet the full financial need of 

each student in the project. One commenter recommended adding a 

selection criterion that would evaluate the extent to which an 

institution has made efforts to meet the financial need of participants 

and to reduce the loan burden on participants.

 Discussion: The language in Sec. 646.11(b) referenced by the 

commenters is from section 402D(e)(6) of the HEA and cannot be changed 

as the commenters requested. With respect to the second comment, 

section 402D(e) of the HEA requires the Secretary to consider the 
institution's effort and, where applicable, past history in providing 

sufficient financial assistance to meet the full financial need of each 

student in the project and in maintaining the loan burden of each 

student at a manageable level. Because Federal grant aid is often 

insufficient to meet a student's full financial need, SSS students may 

be offered large amounts of loans to meet their financial needs for 

attendance at the grantee institution. Under current Sec. 646.21(d)(3) 

(Institutional commitment), the Secretary evaluates the extent to which 

the applicant has demonstrated a commitment to minimize the dependence 

on student loans in developing financial aid packages for project 

participants by committing institutional resources, to the extent 

possible. We believe the regulation adequately addresses the 

commenter's concern and that no further changes are necessary.

 Changes: None.

What assurances and other information must an applicant include in an 

application? Consultations between SSS project and financial aid office 

in awarding of grant aid.

 Comments: Several commenters recommended that Sec. 646.30(i) 

(Allowable cost--grant aid) be revised to incorporate the statutory 

language regarding the required consultation between the SSS project 

and their institution's financial aid office to determine the students 

who are eligible for grant aid and the amount of grant aid to be 

awarded (see section 402D(d)(1) of the HEA). The commenters noted that, 

while awarding financial aid is the responsibility of the financial aid 

office, the grant aid can only be awarded to SSS participants and, 

therefore, the SSS Director should be consulted with respect to which 

students should receive the grant aid and the amount of the grant aid 

awards.

 Discussion: We agree with the commenters' concern that the 

regulations should require consultation between the SSS project and the 

financial aid office in the awarding of grant aid, but believe it would 

be better to include this requirement as an assurance in Sec. 646.11, 

rather than as an allowable cost under Sec. 646.30(i).

 Changes: We have amended Sec. 646.11 to include a new paragraph 

(d) that requires an applicant to assure the Secretary in the 

application that the institution's financial aid office will consult 

with the SSS project with respect to which SSS participants should 

receive grant aid and the amount of the grant aid awards.

Certificate or Degree Completion and Transfer to a Four-Year 

Institution (Sec. Sec. 646.21(b)(3)(ii) and 646.22(e)(5))

 Comment: A number of commenters requested that the Department 

revise the evaluation criterion in Sec. 646.21(b)(3)(ii), related to 

the applicant's proposed objectives, that would award up to 2 points 

for certificate or degree completion and transfer to a four-year 

institution so that the criterion only evaluated whether participants 

transfer to four-year institutions. The commenters indicated that, in 

many cases, it is in the student's best interest to transfer to a fouryear institution prior to receiving a certificate or degree from the 

two-year institution.

 One commenter stated that it would not be feasible for an applicant 

to collect data on transfers to four-year institutions or graduate and 

professional school enrollment because by the time this data can be 

collected, the student has left the institution and may have
[[Page 65748]]

severed ties with the school. One commenter asked for clarification on 

whether retention in postsecondary education for purposes of the 

selection criteria means retention at the grantee institution or in any 

institution of higher education.

 Discussion: Sections 646.21(b)(3)(ii) and 646.22(e)(5) are based on 

statutory language from section 402A(f)(3)(C)(ii)(II) of the HEA. 

Section 402A(f)(3)(C)(ii)(II) of the HEA specifically includes, as 

outcome criteria, both certificate or degree completion and transfer to 

a four-year institution prior to receiving a certificate or degree from 

the two-year institution. For this reason, we cannot make the change 

requested by the commenters.

 With regard to the retention objective (see Sec. 646.22(e)(2) and 

(e)(3)), a grantee is only required to report on participants served 

during the project year who: (1) Graduate from the grantee institution 

during the project year; (2) transfer from a two-year to a four-year 

institution during the project year; or persist at the grantee 

institution into the fall term of the next academic year. With regard 

to the good standing objective (see Sec. 646.22(e)(3)), a grantee is 

only required to report on participants served during the project year.

 Changes: We have revised Sec. 646.22(e)(2) to clarify that the 

Secretary evaluates the applicant's retention and good standing 

objectives based on participants served during the project year. We 

have also revised Sec. 646.22(e)(4) and (e)(5) (degree completion) to 

clarify that the objectives include current and prior year participants 

who are still enrolled at the grantee institution. In addition, for 

consistency with the regulatory language used for the PE criteria in 

the other TRIO programs, we have removed the words ``the percentage 

of'' from Sec. 646.22(e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4), and (e)(5).

What are allowable costs? (Sec. 646.30)

 Comment: Six commenters requested that we specify that a SSS 

project may pay for lodging and meals for participants and staff 

participating in project-sponsored educational and cultural activities.

One commenter noted that adding this language to Sec. 646.30(e), for 

example, would allow SSS participants to participate in State and 

regional leadership conferences, which are held over the weekend and 

require overnight lodging. The commenter also noted that for projects 

in rural or remote locations many educational and cultural activities 

require overnight lodging.

 Discussion: The Secretary acknowledges that participation in some 

educational and cultural activities may require overnight travel (e.g., 

State or regional leadership conferences). However, we also believe 

that the use of project funds for these activities must be limited to 

ensure that sufficient project funds are available to provide academic 

support services. Therefore, the Secretary will require a project to 

obtain prior approval for educational and cultural trips that require 

overnight travel.

 Changes: We have revised Sec. 646.30(e) to include, as an 

allowable cost, transportation and, with prior approval of the 

Secretary, meals and lodging for participants and staff during approved 

educational and cultural activities sponsored by the project.

 Comment: Many commenters requested the removal of the four percent 

cap on the amount a project may spend on professional development 
travel under Sec. 646.30(g). The commenters stated that this cap is 

inconsistent with other TRIO programs, which do not have a professional 

development cap.

 Discussion: The Secretary does not agree with the commenter's 

suggestion. This provision provides grantees with clear parameters 

regarding the percentage of project funds we believe are sufficient for 

professional development travel for staff. In addition, in unusual 

situations, a grantee may ask the Secretary to approve a higher 

percentage to address unique circumstances (e.g., high cost of travel 

in some areas, new staff that could benefit from more professional 

development). We acknowledge that this limitation is not included in 

the regulations for the other TRIO programs. However, we do not believe 

it is appropriate to add this provision to the other program 

regulations at this time because the NPRM did not suggest we were 

considering applying this restriction to all of the programs. 

Nonetheless, we encourage all TRIO projects to limit the amount of 

funds spent on professional development travel to no more than four 

percent of staff salaries and may consider proposing a provision like 

this for the regulations for the other TRIO programs at a later date.

 Changes: None.

 Comment: One commenter suggested adding the phrase ``service 

agreement'' after the word ``lease'' in Sec. 646.30(f), because many 

technology systems may require repairs and software packages and those 

repairs and software packages may be made available through service 

agreements.

 Discussion: We agree with the suggestion to include service 

agreements as an allowable cost in Sec. 646.30(f).

 Changes: We have revised Sec. 646.30(f) to include service 

agreements for equipment.

 Comment: One commenter suggested that we add a new paragraph (k) to 

Sec. 646.30 to include as an allowable cost admission application fees 

for project participants who complete a certificate or degree before 

continuing to another higher education institution if the certain 

conditions exist. The commenter noted that such language would be 

consistent with the regulations for the TS program, which, like SSS, 

aims to assist students in securing admission to the next level of 

academic study.

 Discussion: We disagree with the commenter's recommendation. Unlike 

the participants in the TS program, SSS participants are enrolled in 

postsecondary programs and are eligible to receive financial aid to 

cover their cost of attendance at the institution. Further, this 

recommendation is inconsistent with Sec. 646.31(b) (Unallowable 

costs), which prohibits the use of grant funds for tuition, fees, 

stipends, and other forms of direct financial support, except for grant 

aid under Sec. 646.30(i), for staff or participants.

 Changes: None.

 Comment: Two commenters requested that the Department clarify the 

use of funds allowed under Sec. 646.30(i). In particular, the 

commenters asked whether awarding rant aid to students who are in their 

first two years of postsecondary education means students who are in 

their first two academic years, or students in their freshman and 

sophomore years, based on credits hours earned.

 Discussion: The reference to the first two years of postsecondary 

education in section 402D(d)(2) of the HEA refers to the student's 

first two years of postsecondary education attendance, not the 

student's grade level classification (e.g., freshman or sophomore).

 Changes: None.
 Comment: A number of commenters requested that we define the term 

``breaks,'' used in Sec. 646.30(j). Under that section, paying for 

temporary housing during breaks in the academic year, for students who 

are homeless children and youths or were formerly homeless children and 

youths and students who are foster care youth, is considered an 

allowable cost. Some commenters were confused as to whether the term 

``breaks'' includes only holiday breaks between semesters, or if the 

term also includes the entire summer semester. One individual requested 

that

[[Page 65749]]

disconnected youth be included in this paragraph as well. The 

commenters also asked that the Department clarify that homeless adult 

SSS participants, who are not formerly homeless youth, are eligible for 

temporary housing support. Specifically, these commenters recommended 

that Sec. 646.30(j) be revised to include, in addition to students who 

are homeless children and youth or were formally homeless children and 

youth and students who are foster care youth, any SSS participant who 

is considered homeless.

 Discussion: Section 402D(c)(5) of the HEA allows SSS projects to 

use grant funds to secure temporary housing during breaks in the 

academic year. The term ``breaks'' in the academic year means any 

period of time between semesters or quarters within the same academic 

year but does not typically include the normal summer break between 

academic years. However, if the participant is enrolled for the summer 

term, ``breaks'' would include the period of time between the spring 

and summer terms and between the summer and fall terms.

 The Secretary does not agree with the recommendation to add 

disconnected youth or homeless adult SSS participants, who are not 

formerly homeless youth to Sec. 646.30(j), as this would go beyond the 

statutory intent, which specifically references the definitions in the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Further, the Secretary does not 

believe that SSS projects will have sufficient funds to provide 

temporary housing assistance for many participants and provide the 

academic support services required under Sec. 646.4. Therefore, the 

Secretary does not believe it is in the best interest of the program to 

expand the populations eligible for temporary housing assistance; 

instead the Secretary encourages SSS project to collaborate with other 

programs at the institution or within the community to meet the housing 

needs of eligible participants.

 Changes: None.

What other requirements must a grantee meet? (Sec. 646.32)

Number of Participants (new Sec. 646.32(a))

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: As discussed in the preamble discussion regarding the 

number of participants under the TS program, we believe it is 

appropriate for the Secretary to identify the minimum and maximum grant 

award amounts and the minimum number of participants that TRIO 

projects, including SSS projects, must serve each year of the grant 

cycle in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for a 

competition. This practice will give the Department the flexibility to 

establish the minimum number of participants to be served based on the 

available resources and other priorities for each competition and to 
adjust these numbers for subsequent competitions based on our 

experience, changing priorities, and cost analyses.

 Changes: We have revised Sec. 646.32 by redesignating current 

paragraphs (a) through (d) as paragraphs (b) through (e) and adding a 

new paragraph (a). New paragraph (a) clarifies that a grantee must 

serve at least the number of participants that the Secretary identifies 

in the application notice for the competition, and states that through 

this notice, the Secretary provides the minimum and maximum grant award 

amounts for the competition.

Coordination of Services (new paragraph Sec. 646.32(c)(5)).

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: Based on comments we received on proposed Sec. 

643.11(b) for the Talent Search program--(Coordination Among Outreach 

Programs Serving Similar Populations), we have added a provision 

regarding the coordination of efforts necessary for students served by 

more than one Federal TRIO or other federally funded program to the 

additional requirements a grantee must meet under Sec. 646.32(c)(5). 

Accordingly, Sec. 646.32(c)(5) now requires the SSS grantee to 

maintain, to the extent practicable, a record of any services SSS 

participants receive during the project year from another Federal TRIO 

program or other federally funded programs serving similar populations. 

This change will help ensure that the limited funds available under 

TRIO and other programs for disadvantaged students are used effectively 

and efficiently by minimizing the duplication of services through 

coordination of activities.

 Change: A new Sec. 646.32(c)(5) has been added to require grantees 

to maintain, to the extent practicable, a record of any services SSS 

participants receive during the project year by other Federal TRIO or 

federally funded programs that serve similar populations.

Project Director (proposed Sec. 646.32(c); final Sec. 646.32(d))

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: For the reasons discussed in the preamble section on 

Project Director under the TS program (proposed Sec. 643.32(c)(3), 

final Sec. 643.32(d)(3)), we have revised proposed Sec. 646.32(c) 

(final Sec. 646.32(d)).

 Changes: We have revised proposed Sec. 646.32(c) (final Sec. 

646.32(d)) to clarify the standard the Secretary will use to consider 

requests for a waiver of the restriction on the number of programs a 

project director may administer.

Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair) Program (34 CFR 

part 647)

What activities and services does a project provide? (Sec. 647.4)

 Comment: Several commenters suggested a variety of changes to Sec. 

647.4. First, commenters recommended that the Department explicitly 

permit grantees to use grant funds for other activities or services 

that meet the goals of the program, to make it clear that grantees may 

go beyond the scope of the activities listed in the regulations. In 

addition, a number of commenters contended that tutoring should be 

moved from a required activity under Sec. 647.4(a) to a permissible 

activity under Sec. 647.4(b); these commenters argued that most McNair 
Scholars will not require tutoring. The commenters further suggested 

that the regulations should specify that tutoring may be offered 

directly or by referral, as needed, and also that tutoring may include 

peer tutoring, in addition to tutoring by a graduate student or other 

professional.

 Finally, a few commenters requested clarification of the 

requirement that a McNair grantee provide summer internships for 

students. The commenters asked whether the internship must specifically 

be a research internship, be distinct from any other internship 

required for the completion of a degree or certificate, and whether the 

internship must be distinct from the research or other scholarly 

activities required under Sec. 647.4(a).

 Discussion: Section 647.4(b) incorporates section 402E(c) of the 

HEA, which lists permissible services a McNair project may provide. The 

regulations do not prohibit grantees from offering additional services 

to meet the goals of the program, and grantees may offer additional 

services not explicitly mentioned as required or permissible. We have 

revised Sec. 647.4(b) to reflect that intent more clearly.

 With regard to the comments concerning tutoring, we note that, 

under section 402E(b)(4) of the HEA, tutoring is a required service in 

the McNair program. However, a grantee may offer tutoring itself, or 

through linkages with other offices at an institution or another

[[Page 65750]]

entity. While grantees must make tutoring available, individual 

participants may choose whether or not to take advantage of this 

service.

 Finally, one of the required services that a McNair grantee must 

provide are summer internships that advance the purpose of the McNair 

program, to prepare disadvantaged college students for doctoral study 

(see section 402E(b)(2) of the HEA). Internships do not necessarily 

have to involve research, but must assist students in preparing for 

doctoral work. There is no requirement that the summer internships be 

in addition to internships that may be required to complete a degree. 

However, internships are a separate and unique activity (see section 

402E(b)(2) of the HEA) offered by a McNair grantee and may not also be 

counted as an opportunity for research or other scholarly activities 

(see section 402E(b)(1) of the HEA). The HEA clearly separates these 

two required activities and McNair programs must offer both.

 Changes: We have revised Sec. 647.4(b) by adding a new paragraph 

(b)(4) that would allow a McNair grantee to provide other services that 

are consistent with the purposes and goals of the McNair program.

What Definitions Apply? (Sec. 647.7)

Definition of Low-income

 Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the definition of 

the term low-income individuals in Sec. 647.7. The commenter 

recommended that the Department provide a chart or other language that 

clarifies the income levels that should be used in making this 

determination, and also that a project should use the same chart 

throughout an entire grant cycle.

 Discussion: We did not propose any changes to the definition of 

low-income individual in the NPRM. However, the commenter does not 

appear to be requesting a change to this definition. Rather, the 
commenter seems to be seeking additional information on how to 

determine whether an individual meets this definition. To document lowincome status, tax documents for the calendar year preceding the 

academic year in which the student will begin to receive services 

should be used. For example, students who initially participate in a 

McNair project in 2009-2010 academic year will have their low-income 

status determined by using tax documents submitted to the IRS for 

calendar year 2008. Also, the Department annually posts, on the TRIO 

Web site, a chart on Annual Income Levels for use by grantees in 

determining student eligibility. A grantee is only required to verify a 

student's low-income status prior to providing the first service to 

that student.

 Changes: None.

Definition of Research or Scholarly Activity

 Comment: Many commenters stated that the definition of research or 

scholarly activity in Sec. 647.7 should be expanded to include 

examples such as developing a research proposal, implementing 

reporting, presenting and publishing research, and attendance at 

professional conferences. They argued that adding these activities as 

examples in the definition would clarify that ``research'' encompasses 

a range of scholarly activities that are more rigorous than typically 

available to undergraduates in a classroom setting.

 Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenters that 

``research'' may include a wide variety of scholarly activities, and we 

intend for the defined term research or scholarly activity to include 

activities such as those mentioned by the commenter. These examples are 

appropriate parts of a doctoral program and accordingly, could satisfy 

the requirement for research or scholarly activity under the McNair 

program. However, because there are so many examples of activities that 

could be covered in this definition, we are not including any examples 

in the regulations, but may include them in non-regulatory guidance.

 Changes: None.

What assurances must an applicant submit? McNair coordination with 

other projects (newly redesignated Sec. 647.11)

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: Based on comments we received regarding coordination of 

services for other TRIO Programs (see the TS, EOC, UB, and SSS 

discussions in this preamble), we believe it is also necessary to add a 

new paragraph (d) to the McNair assurances in newly redesignated Sec. 

647.11 to clarify that a student receiving benefits from a McNair 

project is not eligible to receive services from another McNair project 

at any one time. Further, we believe that it is appropriate to require 

each McNair project to provide an assurance it will collaborate with 

other McNair and SSS projects and other State and institutional 

programs at the grantee-institution, including those supporting 

undergraduate research, so that more students can be served. This 

change will allow McNair projects to serve more participants and reduce 

duplication of services, and it mirrors a similar assurance under the 

regulations for the TS, EOC, UB, and SSS programs. Furthermore, it is 

consistent with current TRIO regulations that establish age and 

academic level criteria for participation in each program to minimize 

overlap in services among programs.

 Changes: We have amended newly redesignated Sec. 647.11 to include 
a new paragraph (d) that requires an applicant to submit as part of its 

application, assurances that a student will not be served by more than 

one McNair project at any one time and that the McNair project will 

collaborate with other McNair and SSS projects and other State and 

institutional programs at the grantee-institution, including those 

supporting undergraduate research, so that more students can be served.

What selection criteria does the Secretary use? (Sec. 647.21(b))

 Comment: We received a number of comments on the selection criteria 

proposed for the McNair program. First, many commenters suggested that 

we add ``or scholarly activity'' after the word ``research'' in 

proposed Sec. 647.21 to maintain consistency with the activities and 

services a McNair project must provide.

 Second, multiple commenters stated that the emphasis on Bachelor of 

Arts/Bachelor of Sciences degree attainment should not be lost with the 

added focus on graduate degree enrollment and attainment. These 

commenters recommended that the regulations for this program retain 

attainment of undergraduate degrees in the selection criteria; they 

suggested that we alter the point distribution to show that both this 

goal and the newly added criteria of success in helping students to 

enroll in and continue enrollment in graduate study are critical 

elements to the program.

 Third, many commenters expressed concern about the new selection 

criteria that relate to continued enrollment in graduate study and 

doctoral degree attainment. These commenters suggested removing one or 

both of these criteria for a variety of reasons. Some expressed concern 

that the criteria were unclear, while others argued that these criteria 

should be removed from the regulations because, rather than applying to 

current scholars, these criteria apply to program alumni, on whom 

programs may not spend funds and over whom they have no control.

 Discussion: First, with respect to the suggestion that we add the 

words ``or scholarly activity'' after the word ``research'' in Sec. 

647.21, we agree that this change is appropriate to ensure

[[Page 65751]]

consistency across the regulations for this program. For this reason, 

we are making this change.

 Second, with regard to the comments concerning the appropriateness 

of focusing on Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of Science degrees, we note 

that the HEOA made changes to the McNair program to better align the 

outcome criteria with the explicit goal of preparing students for 

success in graduate programs leading to doctoral degrees, including 

continued enrollment in graduate school and doctoral degree attainment. 

In doing so, Congress did not use the same criteria as in the current 

regulations (e.g., attainment of a baccalaureate degree); therefore, we 

have used the statutory criteria. We have also decided not to change 

the point distribution related to these selection criteria, as we have 

determined that the proposed points correctly reflect the statutory 

goals of the program.

 Third, the regulations that include the new selection criteria that 

relate to continued enrollment in graduate study and doctoral degree 

attainment appropriately reflect the statute. Section 402A(f)(3)(D)(iv) 

of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, requires the 

Department to use the attainment of doctoral degrees by former

participants in evaluating the quality and effectiveness of a McNair 
project.

 Changes: We have amended Sec. 647.21(b)(1) to add the words ``or 

scholarly activity'' after the word ``research''.

How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience? (Sec. 647.22)

 Comment: Numerous commenters expressed concern about the proposed 

point distribution for evaluating prior experience in making awards for 

the McNair program. Multiple commenters expressed concern that the 

points are weighted too heavily on graduate school enrollment and 

continued enrollment in graduate school through doctoral degree 

attainment. These commenters argued that it does not make sense to give 

so many points and emphasis to areas over which a grantee has little 

control, as the points would be based on alumni participants instead of 

current scholars. Further, the commenters stated that the difficulties 

and costs in tracking students for these criteria merit awarding a 

lower point value for them. One commenter requested that the language 

in Sec. 647.22(e)(3) through (e)(5) be clarified to ensure that 

current McNair participants are not counted in the calculation of prior 

experience because those individuals would not have been able to 

participate in graduate educational opportunities at that point in 

their academic careers. Multiple commenters requested that the 

regulations reflect a reapportionment of the PE points to focus more on 

the direct contact, activities, and time that the project spends with 

current applicants, rather than focusing on the success of students who 

are no longer current McNair participants. The commenters contended 

that it was unfair to place so much emphasis on the graduate success of 

a student, when grantees are not allowed to provide services to those 

students.

 Other commenters requested that the Department clarify what is 

meant by the term ``doctoral level degree'' for purposes of calculating 

PE points. They urged the Department to consider other degrees besides 

a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) as a doctoral level degree; for 

instance, they argued that a doctor of education (ED.D), doctor of 

psychology (Psy.D), or doctor of social work (D.S.W.) should be 

considered a doctoral level degree. Further, one commenter suggested 

that, instead of requiring a doctoral level degree, the regulations 

should use the terminal degree in the field in which the degree is 

sought, arguing, for example, that a master of fine arts degree is the 

highest degree available for that particular field.

 Finally, a few commenters suggested some changes to the regulatory 

language to clarify various provisions. Specifically, commenters 

recommended changing ``research and scholarly activities'' in proposed 

Sec. 647.22(e)(2) to ``research or scholarly activities'' to maintain 

consistency with other sections in these regulations. Further, one 

commenter recommended adding the word ``current'' before the word 

``participants'' in Sec. 647.22(e)(1) through (e)(5).

 Discussion: We disagree with the commenters' suggestions about 

redistributing the PE points among the criteria. Most (sixty percent) 

of the PE points are awarded based on the expected outcomes for 

participants served during the project year (see Sec. 647.22(e)(1), 

(e)(2), and (e)(3)). The remaining points (6 out of a possible 15 

points) are awarded based on the extent to which prior participants are 

moving toward achieving the main goal of the McNair program, which is 

attainment of doctoral degrees (see the program outcome criteria in 

section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA).

 With regard to the comments requesting clarification of what is 
considered a doctoral level degree, the Department agrees that this 

term is not limited to a doctor of philosophy. Other research intensive 

doctoral degrees, such as a doctor of education (Ed.D.), a doctor of 

psychology (Psy.D.), and a doctor of social work (D.S.W.) are 

appropriate to the goals of the program. However, the purpose of the 

McNair program is to encourage research at the doctoral level, and we, 

therefore, disagree with the suggestion that using the terminal degree 

in the field is sufficient.

 Because the Department agrees with the commenters that changing the 

reference to ``research and scholarly activities'' in Sec. 

647.22(e)(2) to ``research or scholarly activities'' will ensure 

greater consistency across sections, we will make this change. Finally, 

we agree that we should clarify that the criteria in Sec. 647.22(e)(2) 

and (e)(3) apply to ``current participants''; however, instead of using 

the phrase ``current year'' we have decided to add the words ``served 

during the project year'' after the word ``participants.'' However, 

Sec. 647.22(e)(4) and (e)(5) relates to prior participants, and we 

will not be making any change to these paragraphs.

 Changes: We have amended Sec. 647.22(e)(2) to change the reference 

from ``research and scholarly activities'' to ``research or scholarly 

activities''. We have also amended Sec. 647.22(e)(2) and (e)(3) by 

adding ``served during the project year'' after the word 

``participants.''

What are allowable costs? (Sec. 647.30)

 Comments: Two commenters suggested adding the phrase ``service 

agreement'' after the word ``lease'' in Sec. 647.30(d), because many 

technology systems may require repairs and software packages that are 

made pursuant to service agreements.

 Discussion: We agree with the commenters who recommended that we 

include service agreements as an allowable cost in Sec. 647.30(d) and 

have revised the regulations accordingly.

 Changes: We have revised Sec. 647.30(d) to include to include 

service agreements for equipment.

What other requirements must a grantee meet? (Sec. 647.32)

Number of Participants (new Sec. 647.32(a))

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: As discussed in the preamble discussion regarding 

number of participants under the TS program, we believe it is 

appropriate for the Secretary to identify the minimum and maximum grant 

award amounts and the minimum number of participants TRIO projects, 

including McNair projects, must serve each year of the grant cycle in 

the Federal Register notice inviting

[[Page 65752]]

applications for a competition. This practice will give the Department 

the flexibility to establish the number of participants to be served 

based on the available resources and other priorities for each 

competition and to adjust these numbers for subsequent competitions 

based on our experience, changing priorities, and cost analyses.

 Change: We have revised Sec. 647.32 by redesignating paragraphs 

(a), (b), (c), and (d) as paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e), 
respectively and adding a new paragraph (a). New paragraph (a) 

clarifies that a grantee must serve at least the number of participants 

that the Secretary identifies in the application notice for the 

competition, and states that through this notice, the Secretary 

provides the minimum and maximum grant award amounts for the 

competition.

Coordination of Services (new Sec. 647.32(c)(5))

 Comment: None.

 Discussion: Based on comments we received on proposed Sec. 

643.11(b) for the Talent Search program--(Coordination Among Outreach 

Programs Serving Similar Populations), we have added a provision 

regarding the coordination of efforts necessary for students served by 

more than one Federal TRIO or other federally funded program to the 

additional requirements a grantee must meet under Sec. 647.32(c)(5). 

We have also added a new McNair assurance requiring the coordination of 

efforts for students served by more than one Federal TRIO Program or 

other state or institutional program (see discussion regarding newly 

redesignated Sec. 647.11(d)). Accordingly, Sec. 647.32(c)(5) now 

requires the McNair grantee to maintain, to the extent practicable, a 

record of any services McNair participants receive during the project 

year from another Federal TRIO program or another federally funded 

program that serves populations similar to those served under the 

McNair program. This change will help ensure that the limited funds 

available under TRIO and other programs for disadvantaged students are 

used effectively and efficiently by minimizing the duplication of 

services through coordination of activities.

 Change: We have added a new Sec. 647.32(c)(5) to require grantees 

to maintain, to the extent practicable, records documenting any 

services the participant receives during the project year from another 

Federal TRIO program or another federally funded program that serves 

populations similar to those served under the McNair program.

Project Director (proposed Sec. 647.32(d); final Sec. 647.32(e))

 Comments: We received a few comments requesting that we remove the 

requirement that a project employ a full-time project director.

 Discussion: The McNair program regulations do not require McNair 

projects to employ a full-time project director. While we did make 

changes to parallel sections of the regulations for other TRIO 

programs, we did not propose any changes to Sec. 647.32(e) of these 

regulations. Accordingly, no changes are necessary in response to these 

comments.

 Changes: None.

Part 694--Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate 

Programs (GEAR UP)

Changes in the Cohort (Sec. 694.4)

 Comment: One commenter asked how GEAR UP services would be provided 

to cohort students who move to non-participating schools after they 

complete the last grade level offered in a school.

 Discussion: Section 694.4 addresses which students a State or 

Partnership must serve under GEAR UP when there are changes in the 

cohort. Specifically, this section of the regulations requires that a 
GEAR UP grantee continue to provide services to at least those students 

in the cohort who, after completing the last grade level offered by the 

school at which the cohort began to receive GEAR UP services, attend 

one or more participating schools that together enroll a substantial 

majority of the students in the cohort.

 In response to the comment, we intend the term ``participating 

schools'' in Sec. 694.4(b)(2) to refer to schools that students in a 

cohort attend after completing the last grade level offered by the 

school at which the cohort began to receive GEAR UP services.

 Based on the language in Sec. 694.4, including our use of the term 

``participating schools,'' we assume that when the commenter uses the 

term ``non-participating schools'' it does so to refer to schools that 

enroll no (or very few) students who have left the school at which 

their cohort began to receive GEAR UP services. Thus, we interpret the 

comment to be asking whether services must be provided to students in a 

cohort who, after completing the last grade level offered by the school 

at which the cohort began to receive GEAR UP services, move to a school 

that enrolls no (or very few) students from the cohort. While a GEAR UP 

grantee certainly could provide these students with GEAR UP services, 

nothing in this section requires it to do so.

 We appreciate that the commenter may be concerned that GEAR UP 

students be able to continue to receive services regardless of what 

school they attend. However, we believe that an LEA would likely 

encounter both logistical and financial challenges that would be 

difficult to overcome if the LEA were required to continue to provide 

GEAR UP services to each student in a cohort regardless of where the 

student may later enroll and how many other GEAR UP students also 

attend that school. We believe that the language of proposed Sec. 

694.4, which we adopt in this final notice, creates the right balance 

for when an LEA must continue to provide GEAR UP services to these 

students.

 Changes: None.

Waiver of Matching Requirements (Sec. Sec. 694.8 and 694.9)

 Comment: One commenter suggested that proposed Sec. Sec. 694.8 and 

694.9 may not be consistent with section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA, which 

was amended by section 404c(3)(C) of the HEOA. The commenter interprets 

this statutory section as authorizing either a State or a Partnership 

to apply for match relief either at the time of application or 

subsequent to receiving the grant award. The commenter observed that 

the proposed regulations do not authorize a State to seek such relief, 

and requested that we revise the final regulations to explain how a 

State may do so.

 Discussion: The Secretary believes that the best statutory 

interpretation of the language in section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA is that 

the Department's authority to grant relief from the program's matching 

requirement to GEAR UP applicants and grantees extends to Partnerships 

but not to States. While section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA authorizes 

approval of ``an eligible entity's request for a reduced match 

percentage,'' this language follows the lead sentence of the paragraph, 

which authorizes the Secretary, by regulation, to modify the minimum 50 

percent match requirement only ``for eligible entities described in 

section 404A(c)(2)'' (i.e., Partnerships). Based on this language, we 

do not interpret the HEA to allow States to apply for match relief 

either at the time of application or subsequent to the grant award.

 Moreover, we believe that granting permission only to Partnerships 
to seek this reduced match percentage represents a reasonable approach 

given the greater capacity States have to provide matching 

contributions. We also note that during negotiated

[[Page 65753]]

rulemaking none of the non-Federal negotiators expressed a contrary 

view, or urged that the language of our proposed Sec. Sec. 694.8 and 

694.9 be modified to reflect the availability of waiver relief for 

State applicants or grantees.

 Changes: None.

What priorities does the Secretary establish for a GEAR UP grant? 

(Sec. 694.19)

 Comment: One commenter suggested that the proposed criteria for 

awarding competitive preference priority points for State applicants 

also be used for awarding competitive preference priority points to 

Partnership applicants.

 Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's request that the proposed 

criteria for awarding competitive preference priority points to State 

applicants also be applied to Partnership applicants. Section 

404A(b)(3) of the HEA mandates that, in making awards to State grant 

applicants, the Secretary must give priority to eligible applicants 

that carried out successful GEAR UP projects immediately before 

enactment of the HEOA and have a prior, demonstrated commitment to 

early intervention leading to college access. Because this provision 

only references applicability to State applicants, we believe that 

Congress intended it only to apply those entities and not to 

Partnership applicants. Therefore, the Department does not have the 

authority to make the change requested by the commenter.

 Changes: None.

Services to students who were served under a previous GEAR UP grant 

(Sec. 694.25)

 Comment: One commenter noted that summer enrichment programs would 

help those students who were served under a prior GEAR UP grant, but 

who had not yet graduated, to better prepare for postsecondary 

education. The commenter seemed to suggest that we revise Sec. 694.25 

to acknowledge the importance of these programs.

 Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenter on the 

importance of summer programs, particularly for those students who did 

not graduate from high school with members of their cohort. However, 

such programs are already specifically authorized in Sec. 694.22(i), 

and this is only one of many GEAR UP activities and strategies for 

helping these particular GEAR UP students to succeed. Moreover, the 

purpose of Sec. 694.25 is to clarify when students who are still in 

secondary schools who were served under a prior GEAR UP grant need to 

continue to receive services under a new grant--not to specify what 

services grantees should provide to meet these students' needs.

 Changes: None.

Executive Order 12866

Regulatory Impact Analysis
 Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 

this regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to the 

requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 

defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy of 

$100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a 

material way (also referred to as an ``economically significant'' 

rule); (2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 

action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the 

budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or 

the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 

priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order. 

Pursuant to the Executive order, it has been determined that this 

regulatory action will have an annual effect on the economy of more 

than $100 million because the amount of government transfers provided 

through these discretionary grant programs will exceed that amount. 

Therefore, this action is ``economically significant'' and subject to 

OMB review under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive order.

 The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are

those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and 

efficiently.

 In assessing the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory 

action, we have determined that the benefits of the regulations justify 

the costs.

 We have determined, also, that this regulatory action does not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the 

exercise of their governmental functions.

HEP and CAMP Programs

 The Secretary has concluded that there is no need to discuss the 

changes to the regulations for HEP and CAMP in the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis because the changes to regulations for these programs were 

minor. The most significant changes to these regulations address who 

can be considered an immediate family member of a migrant individual in 

order to be eligible for program services. The Department determined 

that providing clarity to the term ``immediate family member'' would 

help ensure there is a uniform standard of eligibility for these 

programs.

Federal Trio Programs

Need for Federal Regulatory Action

 These Federal TRIO program regulations are needed to 

implement provisions of the HEOA, which changed certain features of the 

TRIO program. In developing these regulations, the Secretary has 

endeavored to regulate only where necessary: Number of Applications: 

The HEA stipulates that entities may submit multiple applications for 

grants under each TRIO program ``if the additional applications 

describe programs serving different populations or different 

campuses.'' The HEA, as amended by the HEOA, defines the terms 
``different population'' and ``different campus.''

 Section 643.22(d): Rigorous Secondary School Program of 

Study: The HEOA modified the HEA's outcome criteria for Talent Search 

by adding the completion of a ``rigorous secondary school program of 

study'' as one of the criteria to be considered in calculating prior 

experience points.

 Section 643.32: Changes to Minimum Number of Participants 

Served in Talent Search: In order to provide it with greater 

flexibility to establish the minimum number of participants in each TS 

grant competition, the Department has decided to eliminate the current 

regulatory requirement that TS projects serve a minimum number of 

individuals.

 Sections 643.30 (TS), 644.30 (EOC), 645.40 (UB), 646.30 

(SSS), 647.30 (McNair): Changes to Allowable Costs (Computer Hardware 

and Software): The requirement that grantees must seek prior approval 

for purchases of computer equipment was not addressed in the statute. 

However, based on comments received during negotiated rulemaking and 

the public comment period, the Department has decided to change its 

allowable cost regulations with respect to the purchase of computer 

equipment.

[[Page 65754]]

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

Sections 643.7 and 643.10 (TS); 644.7 and 644.10 (EOC); 645.6 and 

645.20 (UB); 646.7 and 646.10 (SSS); and 647.7 and 647.10 (McNair): 

Number of Applications: Different Campuses and Different Populations

 The HEA stipulates that entities may submit multiple applications 

``if the additional applications describe programs serving different 

populations or different campuses.'' Section 402A(h)(1) and (2) of the 

HEA defines ``different campus'' and ``different population.'' A 

``different campus'' is defined as a site of an institution of higher 

education that: Is geographically apart from the main campus of the 

institution; is permanent in nature; and offers courses in educational 

programs leading to a degree, certificate, or other recognized 

credential. A ``different population'' is defined in section 402A(h)(2) 

of the HEA as a group of individuals that an eligible entity desires to 

serve through an application for a TRIO grant that is: Separate and 

distinct from any other population that the entity has applied for a 

TRIO grant to serve; and while sharing some of the same needs as 

another population that the entity has applied to serve, has distinct 

needs for specialized services.

 The regulations clarify that, for the purposes of the TS and UB 

programs, applicants will be allowed to submit multiple applications if 

they plan to serve different target schools. For the SSS and McNair 

programs, applicants can submit multiple applications if they propose 

to serve different campuses.

 These final regulations establish a definition of ``different 

campus'' that is different from the definition of ``different campus'' 

currently in the SSS regulations. Current SSS regulations require a 

``different campus'' to have separate budget and hiring authority to be 

an eligible applicant. However, the HEA, as amended by HEOA, defined 

``different campus'' as a site of an institution of higher education 

that is: ``Geographically apart from the main campus of the 

institution,'' ``permanent,'' and one that offers courses leading to an 

educational credential. These regulations, therefore, use the 
definition from the HEA.

 With respect to the implementation of the HEA's definition of 

``different population,'' initially, the Department proposed to 

implement this definitional change consistent with its current 

practice. Currently, all of the TRIO programs--except for SSS--prohibit 

an applicant from submitting an application proposing to serve a 

different population within the same target area, school, campus, etc. 

The SSS program allows an entity to submit a separate application to 

serve individuals with disabilities. However, during the negotiated 

rulemaking sessions, the non-Federal negotiators disagreed with this 

approach and argued that the HEA permits applicants to submit multiple 

applications that propose to serve different populations, even in the 

same target area, school, or campus. The Secretary has adopted this 

latter view. Under these final regulations, therefore, an applicant 

planning to serve a separate population will be permitted under certain 

circumstances to apply for a separate grant to serve the population 

even if it also applies to serve a different population of students on 

the same campus.

 While grantees must be able to serve more students and to tailor 

services to meet the distinct needs of different populations, the 

Department needs to establish some limitations on the number of 

separate applications an eligible entity may submit for each 

competition. Without such limitations, adding the definition of the 

term different population to the regulations could have the unintended 

consequence of disproportionately increasing funding at some 

institutions, agencies, and organizations that submit several 

applications while limiting the funds available to expand program 

services to other areas, schools, and institutions. To mitigate this 

risk and to ensure fairness and consistency in the application process, 

the Department has amended the regulations for each of the TRIO 

programs to provide that the Department will define, for each 

competition, the different populations for which an eligible entity can 

submit separate applications and publish this information in the 

Federal Register notice inviting applications and other application 

materials for the competition.

 This approach gives the Department the flexibility to designate the 

different populations for each competition based on changing national 

needs. It also permits the Department to more effectively manage the 

program competitions within the available resources.

 For these reasons, under the final regulations, an entity applying 

for more than one grant under the TS, EOC, and UB programs may submit 

separate applications to serve different target areas and different 

target schools, and may also submit separate applications to serve one 

or more of the different populations designated in the Federal Register 

notice inviting applications. Entities applying for grants under the 

SSS and McNair programs will now be able to submit separate 

applications to serve different campuses and may also submit separate 

applications to serve one or more of the different populations 

designated in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the 

competition.

 These regulatory changes are expected to increase the number of 

grant applications for SSS (and other TRIO) grants. For the SSS 

program, the Department estimates an increase of about 450 applicants 

(from 1,200 to 1,650) for each competition. With 450 new applicants 

devoting approximately 34 hours to the process, the Department 

estimates that the amount of money spent on applications by applicants 

will increase by $742,950. (Note, however, that the cost to individual 
applicants is not expected to increase).

 Increase in Aggregate Applicant Costs

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

 Estimated

 Burden Calculations increase

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

Professional Staff............... (450 additional $546,750

 applications * 27 hours

* $30 per hour) +

Overhead at 50% of

salary.

Clerical Staff................... (450 additional 56,700

applications * 7 hours

* $12 per hour) +

 Overhead at 50% of

salary.

Use of Computer Equipment........ 450 additional 94,500

applications * ($200

for computer time + $10

for printing).

Operation Cost................... 450 additional 45,000

applications * $100

cost of finding and

 maintaining application

materials.

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

 Total........................ ........................ 742,950

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

Note: Cost estimations are based on the ``Supporting Statement for the

 Application for Grants Under the Student Support Services Program,

 HEOA of 2008, Title IV-A.''

[[Page 65755]]

 In addition, the cost of administering the SSS grant competition 

will likely increase. In particular, the Department estimates that 

variable costs of processing and reviewing applications will increase 

by 37.5 percent. The cost of retaining outside reviewers should 

increase to $555,000 from $404,000 while application processing costs 

should increase from approximately $25,000 to $34,560. Costs associated 

with staff time for conducting the supervised review process are 

expected to increase from $377,000 to $518,000. Finally, costs 

associated with financing workshops, field reading, and slate 

preparation are expected to increase from $917,000 to $1,260,625. In 

sum, the Department estimates the expected increase in grant 

applications to increase administration costs by approximately 

$646,000.

 Increase in Cost to Federal Government

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

 Estimated

 Burden Calculations increase

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

Field reviewers.................. Proportional increase in $151,364

 field reviewers as a
 result of increase in

applications * $1,100

($1,000 honorarium,

$100 for expenses).

Processing applications.......... Proportional increase in 9,426

staff or staff hours as

a result of increase in

applications.

Contractor logistical support for Proportional increase in 343,807

workshops, achieving prior contract costs as a

unfunded applications, result of increase in

application processing, field applications.

reading and slate preparation.

Staff time for conducting Proportional increase in 141,382

supervised review. staff or staff hours as

 a result of increase in

applications.

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

 Total........................ ........................ 645,978

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

Note: Cost estimations are based on the ``Supporting Statement for the

 Application for Grants Under the Student Support Services Program,

 HEOA of 2008, Title IV-A.''

 The primary beneficiaries of the regulatory change related to 

different populations will be students with special needs. To the 

extent that college completion strategies vary across different 

populations of students, allowing applicants to submit separate 

applications for different populations should increase the delivery of 

the right kinds of services to students. SSS projects geared 

specifically towards ESL students, for instance, should be able to 

provide highly specialized services to these students in a more 

efficient and effective manner than would a general SSS project.

Section 643.30: Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study Adding 

Tuition as an Allowable Cost in the TS program:

 The HEOA modified the outcome criteria for the TS program. These 

outcome criteria are used to determine the award of prior experience 

points for grantees that choose to apply for future awards. One of the 

new outcome criteria added to the statute requires grantees to report 

on the number of all TS participants who complete a rigorous secondary 

school program of study that will make the students eligible for 

Academic Competitiveness Grants (ACG). This new statutory criterion in 

and of itself does not require that TS projects provide more intensive 

services: It could be interpreted simply as requiring the Department to 

track whether TS students, with proper counseling on course selection 

and with referrals to tutoring services, enroll in the coursework that 

would qualify them for an ACG grant. (In most States, students can 

qualify for an ACG grant if they complete four years of English; three 

years of mathematics, including algebra I and a higher-level class such 

as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and statistics; three years 

of science, including at least two of three specific courses, biology, 

chemistry, and physics; three years of social studies; and one year of 

a language other than English. In addition, under the ACG program, 

there are other options for meeting the rigorous course of study 

requirement, including taking International Baccalaureate or Advanced 

Placement courses.)

 A number of commenters on the proposed regulations contended some 
schools served by TS grantees do not provide the type of curriculum 

necessary for students to meet the ACG program's requirements for a 

``rigorous secondary school program of study.'' Consequently, they 

argued, grantees serving students in these schools would be at a 

disadvantage with respect to meeting this criterion. They specifically 

requested that grantees be permitted to use grant funds to enable 

participants in the TS program to attend classes at other schools to 

help grantees satisfactorily meet this new outcome criterion.

 The Department has decided to allow TS grantees to use grant funds 

to pay a participant's tuition for a course that is part of a rigorous 

secondary school program of study if a similar course is not offered at 

a school within his or her school district provided that several 

conditions are met. The Department also has decided to allow TS 

grantees to pay for a student's transportation to a school not

regularly attended by that student for that student to take a course 

that is part of a rigorous secondary school program of study.

 To determine the impact of these regulations, we need to estimate 

the number of TS participants who do not have access to a rigorous 

secondary school program of study at their high school and the cost of 

providing these participants with the requisite curriculum (through 

payment of tuition and transportation costs to locations at which the 

participants will receive instruction). We also need to estimate the 

extent to which grantees that are serving schools with these 

participants will elect to incur these costs.

 According to recent program data from the ACG 2007-2008 End of the 

Year Report, 54 percent of ACG recipients qualified under a rigorous 

coursework component, 41 percent under a State designated curriculum, 

and four percent under the Advanced Placement or International 

Baccalaureate Program courses. The Department asked the public for data 

on the extent to which rigorous coursework offerings that would meet 

the ACG requirements are not available at the schools or areas that are 

targeted under the TS program and the number of potential TS 

participants in these schools or areas that would be unable to meet the 

requirements because of the unavailability of the curriculum. The only 

data we received from the public

[[Page 65756]]

with respect to the availability of rigorous curricula at TS schools 

described the availability of such course offerings at the Portland 

Public Schools and the Hillsboro School District. According to the 

commenter providing these data, the secondary schools in these 

districts now provide a curriculum that meets the third definition of a 

rigorous secondary school program in these regulations and, by the 

2011-2012 academic year, all these schools will be required to provide 

such a curriculum. Although we do not have national data on the number 

of affected students, we do have some data on the cost of providing 

tuition assistance. Based on data collected by the American Association 

of Community Colleges (AACC) in 2008, we estimate that the cost of 

providing a student with one course per semester, including required 

textbooks, would be approximately $560 to $1,280. AACC data indicate 

that the per credit costs for public community colleges range from 

about $20 in California to $180 in Vermont. This compares to an average 

grantee cost per TS participant of approximately $402 in 2008, which 

means that the opportunity cost of providing tuition for one TS 

participant to take one class at a community college is roughly equal 

to what it costs on average to serve 1 to 3 additional participants 
under the TS program prior to the enactment of HEOA. Because we do not 

know the extent to which grantees will elect to use funds for this 

purpose or the actual costs of providing access to this coursework, we 

asked current TS grantees to provide estimates regarding the amount of 

the project budget that might be used for tuition and the estimated 

number of participants that might benefit each year from this service 

if the grantee elected to provide it. A few grantees responded to this 

request, but their comments were based on an expectation that the new 

regulations would introduce a two-tiered system of service-provision in 

which grantees would concentrate on providing a rigorous secondary 

school program of study to only 10 percent of its participants. In 

these final regulations, the Department is clarifying that TS grantees 

will collaborate and coordinate with their target schools to provide 

access to and assistance in completing a rigorous secondary school 

program of study for all participants (see Sec. 643.21(c)(4)). With 

respect to the benefits of this regulatory change, the Secretary 

believes that students enrolled in schools with curricula that do not 

meet the State's definition of a rigorous secondary school program of 

study will be the primary beneficiaries. TS participants in schools 

that do not offer all of the coursework needed to meet the requirements 

of a rigorous secondary school program of study (e.g., they do not 

offer a physics or chemistry course) may be afforded the opportunity to 

take such coursework through an institution of higher education. Given 

the body of research suggesting that students who take rigorous classes 

in high school are more likely to enroll in and complete postsecondary 

education, providing this benefit to TS participants could improve 

their educational outcomes. A 2003 GAO report, for instance, reported 

that students taking a highly rigorous secondary school program of 

study were 1.7 times more likely to earn a bachelor's degree than 

students who took a basic high school curriculum.\6\ However, grantees 

will need to balance the costs of providing these opportunities to 

individual students with the expected educational benefits to avoid an 

unnecessary increase in the cost of successful outcomes under this 

program.

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

 \6\ GAO, ``Additional Efforts Could Help Education With its 

Education Goals,'' May 2003, available at 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03568.pdf.

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

Section 643.32: Changes to the Minimum Number of Participants Served in 

TS

 Current TS regulations require that any grantee receiving an award 

of $180,000 or more must serve a minimum of 600 individuals. In these 

final regulations, the Department removes this requirement that TS 

projects serve a minimum number of individuals.

 The Department has decided to take this action to provide it 

flexibility in each competition to establish the minimum number of 

participants that must be served, and to adjust these numbers in 

subsequent competitions based on experience, cost analyses, and other 

factors.

 The Department is committed to encouraging TS grantees to identify 

and adopt the most cost-effective strategies to help disadvantaged 

youth complete secondary school programs, enroll in or reenter 

education programs at the postsecondary level, and complete 

postsecondary education programs. The Department intends to design 
future TS grant competitions to achieve this objective. Grant 

competition notices will set parameters that are consistent with the 

statute to encourage adoption of cost effective practices using the 

best available evidence. This will include setting a minimum number of 

program participants for each competition to promote adoption of costeffective practices.

 In accordance with Sec. 643.32(b) of the final regulations, the 

Secretary will specify the number of participants a TS project will be 

expected to serve each year of the grant cycle through the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications for a competition. Through this 

notice, the Secretary will also provide the minimum and maximum grant 

award amounts for the project period.

Sections 643.30 (TS), 644.30 (EOC), 645.40 (UB), 646.30 (SSS), 647.30 

(McNair): Changes to Allowable Costs (Computer Hardware and Software)

 Under the final regulations, TRIO projects no longer are required 

to obtain the Secretary's approval before purchasing computer and 

software equipment. This regulatory change eliminates administrative 

costs associated with obtaining this approval.

GEAR UP

Need for Federal Regulatory Action

 The final GEAR UP regulations are needed to implement provisions of 

the HEOA, which changed certain features of the GEAR UP program. The 

Secretary has endeavored to regulate only where necessary, and in ways 

that to the extent possible reflect the recommendations of the nonFederal negotiators. The statutory changes that have prompted us to 

make changes in these regulations follows:

 Section 694.19--Priority: Section 404A(b)(3)(A) of the HEA 

now requires that priority be given to those States that have ``carried 

out successful [GEAR UP] programs'' prior to enactment of the HEOA, and 

have a ``prior, demonstrated commitment to early intervention leading 

to college access through collaboration and replication of successful 

strategies.''

 Section 694.8--Waiver of Matching Requirements: Section 

404C(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, permits the Secretary to 

waive the matching requirement for a Partnership in whole or in part 

if, at the time of application, the Partnership demonstrates 

significant economic hardship that precludes it from meeting the 

matching requirement, or requests that its contributions to the 

scholarship fund under section 404E of the HEA be matched on a two-forone basis. Section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA also permits the Secretary to 

waive the matching requirement for any Partnership grantee that 

demonstrates that the matching funds described in its application are 

not available and that it

[[Page 65757]]

has exhausted all revenues for replacing these matching funds.

 Sections Sec. Sec. 694.12 and 694.14--Scholarship 

Component: Section 404E(e)(1) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, 

requires each State grantee to reserve an amount of money that is not 

less than the minimum scholarship amount described in section 404E(d) 

of the HEA, multiplied by the number of students the grantee estimates 

will complete a secondary school diploma or its equivalent as may be 

required for the students' admission and enrollment at an institution 
of higher education. The Department interprets this new statutory 

provision along with the new requirement in section 404E(d) of the HEA 

that all eligible students (as defined in section 404E(g) of the HEA), 

whether served by a State or Partnership grantee, who enroll in an 

institution of higher education receive at least the minimum Federal 

Pell Grant award, to require any GEAR UP grantee subject to the section 

404E requirements to provide this minimum award to all GEAR UP students 

enrolled in an institution of higher education. This statutory change 

led the Department to revisit its current regulations governing the 

provision of continuation scholarships.

 Section Sec. 694.16--Return of Unused Scholarship Funds: 

Section 404E(e)(4)(A) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, now requires 

State grantees either to redistribute to other eligible students 

scholarship funds that are not used by eligible students within six 

years of the student's completion of secondary school or return those 

funds to the Secretary for distribution to other grantees in accordance 

with the funding rules described in section 404B(a) of the HEA.

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

Section 694.19: Priority

 Final Sec. 694.19 clarifies how the Department will implement the 

statute's requirement that priority in making awards be given to those 

States that meet the following elements: (1) Prior to enactment of the 

HEOA have ``carried out successful GEAR UP programs'' and (2) have a 

``prior, demonstrated commitment to early intervention leading to 

college access through collaboration and replication of successful 

strategies.'' While the Department could seek to implement this 

statutory priority by having applicants address in their applications 

how they met of these elements, we believe that imposing this kind of 

data burden is unnecessary.

 Instead, we will rely, where possible, on reports that applicants 

previously submitted in implementing their prior GEAR UP projects. 

Thus, to implement this statutory priority, the Department will grant 

``priority preference points'' to State applicants, based, in part, on 

their prior submission of data, including outcome data, about their 

projects and other information available to the Department. At present, 

the Department is considering implementing the second element of the 

priority, which concerns a prior, demonstrated commitment to early 

intervention leading to college access, through review of the new GEAR 

UP application itself given that we do not know how else the Department 

would obtain the information it needs to determine the extent to which 

applicants would meet the second element of the priority. Moreover, 

should the Department determine that it needs applicants to provide 

more information on this second element in their applications, the 

Department believes that the additional burden would be very small, and 

that the costs of this additional administrative burden would be far 

outweighed by the benefits of ensuring that the Department is able to 

give priority to the most deserving State applicants.

Sections 694.8 and 694.9: Waiver of Matching Requirements

 Consistent with section 404C(b) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, 

these new sections specify the circumstances in which the Secretary 

will consider requests from applicants for a waiver of GEAR UP's 

matching requirement based on significant economic hardship, and from 

grantees based on the unavailability of matching funds as described in 

section 404C(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(B) of the HEA. (Section 

404C(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the HEA also authorizes a Partnership applicant to 
request that contributions to scholarship funds established under 

section 404E of the HEA be matched on two-to-one basis, but final Sec. 

694.8(c) simply repeats this statutory provision.)

 The final regulations governing waiver requests by applicants 

(Sec. 694.8) and by grantees (Sec. 694.9) provide significant benefit 

to the public, and do so in numerous ways. First, they provide that the 

Secretary will entertain waiver requests of significant amounts from 

applicants and grantees--up to 75 percent for up to two years in the 

case of an applicant that demonstrates a significant economic hardship 

stemming from a specific, exceptional, or uncontrollable event, and up 

to 50 percent for up to two years in the case of an applicant with a 

pre-existing and on-going significant economic hardship that precludes 

the applicant from meeting the matching requirement. Second, by 

providing clarifying examples of the kinds of economic situations and 

events that would give rise to approval of an applicant's or grantee's 

waiver requests, the final regulations advise the public of the 

considerations the Secretary will examine upon receipt of a waiver 

request.

 Finally, for an applicant in an area that faces chronic economic 

challenges expected to affect the life of the GEAR UP project, Sec. 

694.8(b)(3) permits the Secretary to grant tentative approval of the 

waiver for the entire project period, subject to the Partnership's 

submission of documentation every two years that confirms (1) the 

continued economic hardship, and (2) the Partnership's continuing and 

unsuccessful attempts to secure matching contributions. This regulatory 

provision both eliminates the applicant's need to prepare a non-Federal 

budget as part of its application, and upon initial approval of the 

waiver request, provides a basis for predicting whether or not the 

Secretary will extend the waiver in future years.

 Thus, these regulatory provisions provide a substantial benefit to 

grantees meeting the new criteria. For example, in 2009, the average 

GEAR UP grant award made to a Partnership was approximately $1.1 

million. Because, absent a waiver, GEAR UP grantees must match the 

amount of Federal expenditures, the average annual matching requirement 

for a Partnership was also $1.1 million in 2009. However, under 

Sec. Sec. 694.8(b) and 694.9(a)(1), a Partnership-applicant that can 

demonstrate an ongoing significant economic hardship that precludes it 

from meeting the matching requirement, or a Partnership grantee that 

can demonstrate that its matching contributions are no longer available 

and that it has exhausted all funds and sources of potential 

replacement contributions, could receive a waiver up to 50 percent, or 

on average up to $600,000 per year. And, under Sec. Sec. 694.8(a) and 

694.9(a)(2), a Partnership that can demonstrate the unavailability of 

match due to an uncontrollable event such as a natural disaster that 

has had a devastating impact on members of the Partnership and the 

community in which they operate may receive a waiver of up to 75 

percent--thus creating a benefit (i.e., a lessened private commitment) 

on average of up to $900,000 per year. Given the current national 

economic climate, such waiver requests seem likely. Moreover, for 

grantees that

[[Page 65758]]

would not be able to continue operating their GEAR UP projects without 

these waivers, these regulations enable the participating students to

continue to receive GEAR UP services, albeit at a reduced level given 

the smaller matching contributions.
 In considering the amount of match subject to possible waiver, the 

non-Federal negotiators opposed waivers of greater size. They stressed 

the importance of a vibrant and committed partnership in GEAR UP 

projects required partners to maintain a commitment of their own 

resources to help provide needed GEAR UP services. Moreover, the nonFederal negotiators also noted that even under current economic 

conditions, partners committed to the GEAR UP projects should be able 

to secure substantial in-kind matching contributions. Accordingly, they 

rejected options under which the Secretary might provide a waiver of 

the matching contributions for one or more years of the project because 

of economic conditions or a one-time exceptional or uncontrollable 

event waiver of up to 100 percent.

 We agree with the non-Federal negotiators on this issue. We believe 

that our decision to allow the Secretary to grant waivers of the 

program's matching requirement of up to 50 and 75 percent strikes the 

right balance between (a) providing relief where circumstances beyond 

the control of a Partnership affect its ability to maintain its 

required match, and (b) the need for members of the Partnership to be 

truly committed to helping to provide the services that participating 

GEAR UP students need.

Sections 694.12 and 694.14: Scholarship Component

 Final Sec. 694.14(g) makes the requirement in prior Sec. 

694.10(d) that grantees participating in the scholarship component must 

grant continuation scholarships to each student who was granted an 

initial scholarship (and who remains eligible) inapplicable to grantees 

that receive their initial GEAR UP awards on or after August 14, 2008. 

Our decision to remove this financial burden from these grantees 

recognizes that by requiring each eligible student to receive at least 

the Federal Pell Grant minimum award, section 404E of the HEA, as 

amended by the HEOA, will leave grantees with insufficient scholarship 

funds to meet the current regulatory requirement. While GEAR UP 

students may bear a corresponding cost by not having these continuation 

awards available to them, this cost results from the new statutory 

requirement that all eligible students receive at least the Pell Grant 

minimum award. Because the minimum scholarship amount is equal to the 

minimum Federal Pell Grant award, which is defined in section 401(b)(4) 

of the HEA as 10 percent of the maximum Pell Grant award, the benefit 

to grantees as a result of final Sec. 694.14(g) is equal to at least 

10 percent of the appropriated maximum Pell grant award in a given 

year, multiplied by the number of individuals the grantee determines 

will not receive continuation awards. Importantly, because removing the 

continuation award requirement from the GEAR UP regulations only 

applies to new awards, no GEAR UP students in newly funded projects 

will have the expectation of receiving a GEAR UP continuation 

scholarship.

Section 694.16: Return of Unused Scholarship Funds

 Section 404E(e)(4)(A)(ii) of HEA, as amended by the HEOA, requires 

grantees to return to the Secretary any scholarship funds that remain 

after they have first redistributed unused funds to eligible students. 

To enable the Department to monitor these scholarship accounts and 

ensure that Federal funds reserved for scholarships are expended as 

intended, the Department has added Sec. 694.16(c), which requires 

grantees participating in the scholarship component of the program to 

provide annual information, as the Secretary may require, on the amount 

of Federal and non-Federal funds reserved for GEAR UP scholarships, and 

the disbursement of those scholarship funds to eligible GEAR UP 

students. These annual reports will need to be submitted until all of 
the funds are either disbursed or returned to the Secretary.

 This requirement imposes an administrative burden on the grantees. 

Grantees will be able to charge some of these administrative costs to 

their award of Federal GEAR UP grant funds because some of these annual 

reports will be prepared and submitted during the project period. Other 

annual reports will need to be prepared and submitted after the six-or 

seven-year GEAR UP project period has ended (by which time it is 

possible that the Partnerships have dissolved). In order to pay the 

costs of post-project reports, grantees may (1) reserve additional 

amounts during each project period for the future costs of preparing 

and submitting post-project reports, or (2) authorize those 

administering the GEAR UP scholarship accounts to deduct such amount 

from the amount held in reserve for GEAR UP scholarships (assuming that 

all eligible students will still be able to receive a minimum Federal 

Pell Grant award).

 Because the Department has not yet established detailed reporting 

requirements for this regulatory provision, it is difficult to estimate 

the costs that grantees could charge to GEAR UP funds. However, based 

on all available information, the Secretary believes that the costs 

introduced by this regulatory provision are justified by the 

Department's need to have the necessary information to monitor the 

millions of dollars of Federal funds obligated to GEAR UP scholarship 

accounts.

Accounting Statement

 As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at 

http://www.Whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the following 

table, 

we have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of 

the expenditures associated with the provisions of this regulatory 

action. This table provides our best estimate of the Federal payments 

to be made to institutions of higher education, public and private 

agencies and organizations, and secondary schools under these programs 

as a result of this regulatory action. Expenditures are classified as 

transfers to those entities.

 Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures

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

 Category Transfers (in millions)

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

Annual Monetized Transfers................ $1,233

From Whom to Whom......................... Federal Government to

 institutions of higher

education, public and

private agencies and

organizations, and

secondary schools.

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

 The Secretary certifies that these regulations will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 

regulations affect institutions of higher education, States, LEAs, and 

nonprofit organizations.

 The Regulatory Flexibility Act defines three types of ``small 
entities.'' They include ``small businesses,'' which have the same 

meaning as ``small business concern'' under section 3 of the Small 

Business Act and includes firms that are ``independently owned and 

operated'' and ``not dominant in its field of operation.'' The U.S. 

Small Business Administration further defines small business by 

developing size standards

[[Page 65759]]

by industry. The definition of small business includes for-profit 

schools with total annual revenue below $7,000,000. The definition of 

small entity also includes ``small organizations,'' which are defined 

as ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 

operated and not dominant in its field,'' and ``small governmental 

jurisdictions,'' which include schools districts under 50,000.

HEP and CAMP

 The Secretary believes that the minor changes reflected in the HEP 

and CAMP regulations will not affect small entities.

Federal TRIO Programs

 The Secretary believes that the regulations for the Federal TRIO 

Programs will not adversely impact any small entities receiving TRIO 

grants. The Department has determined that approximately 141 of the 

2,887 TRIO grantees are defined as ``small entities'' under the U.S. 

Small Business Administration's size standards. Of these 141 entities, 

133 are nonprofit organizations that receive less than $5,000,000 in 

total annual revenue, 7 are LEAs or tribes with jurisdictions 

containing fewer than 50,000 people, and one is a secondary school. The 

Secretary believes that the final Federal TRIO regulations will not 

negatively impact these small entities and, in fact, believes that 

small grantees will benefit from these regulations. For example, the 

removal of the minimum students served requirement under the TS program 

will benefit small entities, whose typically smaller budgets make it 

difficult to serve large numbers of students. In addition, the 

elimination of the requirement for grantees to obtain the Secretary's 

approval before purchasing computer equipment will benefit small 

grantees, in particular, because administrative costs for these 

grantees are most burdensome. Most importantly, given that TRIO 

programs are competitive grant programs, all costs of participating are 

reimbursed by the grant.

GEAR UP

 The Secretary believes that the final GEAR UP regulations will not 

adversely impact any small entities receiving GEAR UP grants. The 42 

States receiving grants are not small entities because each State has a 

population exceeding 50,000. Thirty of the fiscal agents for the 154 

Partnership grants are LEAs; according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 6 of 

these LEAs have jurisdiction over an area with fewer than 50,000 

residents, and as such, are defined as ``small entities'' under the 

U.S. Small Business Administration size standards. However, the 

Secretary believes that these small entities will not be adversely 

impacted by the regulations. In accordance with statutory changes, the 

regulations regarding matching requirement waivers should particularly 
benefit small fiscal agents, which are more vulnerable to economic 

hardship than large fiscal agents, and, therefore, more likely to 

qualify for waivers.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

 Sections 642.21, 642.22, and 642.25 of the Training Program for 

Federal TRIO Programs (Training) regulations; Sec. Sec. 643.21, 

643.22, 643.24 and 643.32 of the Talent Search (TS) regulations; 

Sec. Sec. 644.21, 644.22, 644.24, and 644.32 of the Educational 

Opportunity Centers (EOC) regulations; Sec. Sec. 645.31; 645.32, 

645.35, and 645.43 of the Upward Bound (UB) regulations; Sec. Sec. 

646.11, 646.21, 646.22, 646.24, 646.32, and 646.33 of the Student 

Support Services (SSS) regulations; Sec. Sec. 647.21, 647.22 and 

647.24 of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 

(McNair); and Sec. Sec. 694.7, 694.8, 694.9, 694.14, 694.19, and 

694.20 of the GEAR UP regulations contain information collection 

requirements. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), the Department will submit a copy of these sections to the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.

Parts 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647--Federal TRIO Programs

 Recent grant application packages for the Training, SSS, TS, EOC, 

UB, and McNair programs have been or will be discontinued; new 

application packages for these programs will be developed prior to 

their next competitions, and will reflect the regulatory changes 

included in these final regulations. For each new application, a 

separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit 

comments on the new application prior to the next scheduled competition 

for the program.

 Likewise, any regulatory changes applicable to the annual 

performance reports (APRs) will affect grants awarded under 

competitions conducted after the enactment of the HEOA. The APRs for 

the first year of a new grant will be due approximately 15 months after 

the beginning of the new grant period. Until new grants are awarded, 

the Department will continue to use the existing APR for the program. A 

new APR for each program that addresses the new HEOA requirements will 

be developed for the new grant period. A separate 60-day Federal 

Register notice followed by a 30-day Federal Register notice will be 

published to solicit public comment on the new APR form for each 

program prior to its usage.

Sections 642.21 and 642.25 (Training)--Selection criteria the Secretary 

uses to evaluate an application for a new grant and the second review 

process for unsuccessful applicants.

 The final regulations for the Training program amend the selection 

criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a new grant 

to conform to current practice. Further, section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the 

HEA established a formal second review process for unsuccessful TRIO 

applicants. Therefore, the final regulations include a new section that 

establishes processes and procedures for a second review of 

unsuccessful applications. The new application will include the changes 

to the selection criteria and describe the processes and procedures for 

the second review of unsuccessful applications.

 Specifically, these regulations remove the Need criterion from the 

selection criteria for the Training program (current Sec. 642.31(f)) 

to conform to current practice. An applicant for a Training grant now 

will need to address one of the absolute priorities established in the 

Federal Register notice inviting applications for the competition. With 
the absolute priorities, the Department will establish the ``need'' for 

the proposed training; thus, the Need selection criterion is no longer 

necessary. This regulatory change will reduce the amount of information 

an applicant must include in its application.

 In addition, the application will describe the procedures an 

unsuccessful applicant must follow to request a second review of its 

application. Under the final regulations, only those applicants in the 

proposed ``funding band'' will be eligible to request a second review. 

As described in the regulations, the Department will notify an 

unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its application 

and the ``funding band'' for the second review and provide copies of 

the peer reviewers' evaluations of the application and the applicant's 

prior experience (PE) scores, if applicable. The applicant will be 

given at least 15 calendar days after receiving notification that its 

application was not funded in which to submit a written request for a 

second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided 

in the Secretary's written notification. To be considered for a second 

review, an applicant must provide evidence

[[Page 65760]]

demonstrating that the Department, an agent of the Department, or a 

peer reviewer made a technical, administrative or scoring error in the 

processing or review of the application. The applicant, however, is not 

permitted to submit any additional data or information related to the 

criteria used to evaluate the quality of the application that was not 

included in its original application.

 The regulatory change to the selection criteria reduces the amount 

of information an applicant must include in its application, resulting 

in an estimated burden reduction of 240 hours. In addition, we estimate 

that approximately 10 percent of the applications received under each 

competition for Training grants will score within the ``funding band.'' 

For each applicant in the ``funding band'' that requests a second 

review, we estimate an additional burden of two hours for a burden 

increase of 12 hours, which includes the time an applicant would need 

to review the peer reviewers' evaluations and, if applicable, the PE 

assessment and submit a written request for a second review.

 Taken together, the regulatory changes reflected in Sec. Sec. 

642.21 and 642.25 will result in a net total burden reduction of 228 

hours, reflected in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW1.

Sections 643.21 and 643.24 (TS)--Selection criteria the Secretary uses 

to evaluate an application for a new grant and the second review 

process for unsuccessful applicants.

 The final regulations amend the selection criteria the Secretary 

uses to evaluate an application for a new TS grant to address statutory 

changes resulting from the HEOA. Further, section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the 

HEA, as amended by the HEOA, added requirements for a formal second 

review process for unsuccessful applicants. Therefore, the final 

regulations add a new section that establishes processes and procedures 

for a second review of unsuccessful applications. The new application 

will include the changes to the selection criteria and the processes 

and procedures for the second review of unsuccessful applications.

 The HEOA made significant changes to the purpose and goals of the 

TS program as reflected in changes to applicant eligibility, the list 

of required and permissible services, and the outcome criteria. To 

better align the selection criteria with these statutory changes, we 

revised the following selection criteria: Sec. 643.21(a) (Need for the 
project); 643.21(b) (Objectives); 643.21(c) (Plan of operation); and 

643.21(d) (Applicant and community support).

 In addition, the application for TS competitions will describe the 

procedures an unsuccessful applicant must follow to request a second 

review of its application. Under the regulations, only those applicants 

in the proposed ``funding band'' will be eligible to request a second 

review. As described in the final regulations, the Department will 

notify an unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its 

application and the ``funding band'' for the second review and provide 

copies of the peer reviewers' evaluations of the application and the 

applicant's PE scores, if applicable. The applicant will be given at 

least 15 calendar days after receiving notification that its 

application was not funded in which to submit a written request for a 

second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided 

in the Secretary's written notification. To be considered for a second 

review, an applicant will need to provide evidence demonstrating that 

the Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made a 

technical, administrative or scoring error in the processing or review 

of the application. The applicant, however, will not be able to submit 

any additional data or information related to the criteria used to 

evaluate the quality of the application that was not included in its 

original application.

 The Department does not expect the changes to the TS selection 

criteria to increase an applicant's paperwork burden. However, we 

estimate that approximately two percent of the applications received 

under each competition for TS grants will score within the ``funding 

band''. For each applicant in the ``funding band'' that requests a 

second review, we estimate an additional burden of two hours, which 

includes the time an applicant would need to review the peer reviewers' 

evaluations and, if applicable, the PE assessment and submit a written 

request for a second review. This will result in a total burden 

increase of 60 hours for the revised application, which will be 

reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW2. The Department has 

already solicited public comments in a separate 30-day Federal Register 

notice that was published on August 5, 2010 (75 FR 37415) on the new 

application process that will be used for the FY 2011 competition for 

new TS grants; the estimated deadline date for receiving applications 

for this competition is December 2010.

Sections 644.21 and 644.24 (EOC)--Selection criteria the Secretary uses 

to evaluate an application for a new grant and the second review 

process for unsuccessful applicants.

 The final regulations for the EOC program amend the selection 

criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a new grant 

to address statutory changes resulting from the HEOA. Further, section 

402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, added requirements 

for a formal second review process for unsuccessful applicants. 

Therefore, the final regulations will establish processes and 

procedures for a second review of unsuccessful applications. The new 

grant application for the EOC program will include the changes to the 

selection criteria and describe the processes and procedures for the 

second review of unsuccessful applications.

 Revisions in the selection criteria are needed to address the 

statutory changes resulting from the HEOA. The HEOA made changes to the 

outcome criteria. To better align the selection criteria with these 

statutory changes, we revised the selection criteria in Sec. 644.21(b) 

(Objectives). The revised selection criteria replace existing criteria.

 In addition, the EOC grant application will describe the procedures 
an unsuccessful applicant would need to follow to request a second 

review of its application. Under these regulations, only those 

applicants in the ``funding band'' will be eligible to request a second 

review. As described in the regulations, the Department will notify an 

unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its application 

and the ``funding band'' for the second review and provide copies of 

the peer reviewers' evaluations of the application and the applicant's 

PE scores, if applicable. The applicant will be given at least 15 

calendar days after receiving notification that its application was not 

funded in which to submit a written request for a second review in 

accordance with the instructions and due date provided in the 

Secretary's written notification. To be considered for a second review, 

an applicant will need to provide evidence demonstrating that the 

Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made a 

technical, administrative or scoring error in the processing or review 

of the application. The applicant, however, will not be able to submit 

any additional data or information related to the criteria used to 

evaluate the quality of the application that was not included in its 

original application.

[[Page 65761]]

 The Department does not expect these changes to the selection 

criteria will increase an applicant's paperwork burden. However, we 

estimate that approximately two percent of the applications received 

under each competition for EOC grants will score within the ``funding 

band.'' For each applicant in the ``funding band'' that requests a 

second review, we estimate an additional burden of two hours, which 

includes the time an applicant would need to review the peer reviewers' 

evaluations and, if applicable, the PE assessment and submit a written 

request for a second review. This will result in a total burden 

increase of 20 hours for the revised application, which will be 

reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW3. A separate 30-day 

Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public comment on 

the new application form to be used for the next competition for new 

EOC grants currently scheduled for winter 2011.

Sections 645.31 and 645.35 (UB)--Selection criteria the Secretary uses 

to evaluate an application for a new grant and the second review 

process for unsuccessful applicants.

 The final UB regulations amend the selection criteria the Secretary 

uses to evaluate an application for a new grant to address statutory 

changes resulting from the HEOA. Further, section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the 

HEA, as amended by the HEOA, added requirements for a formal second 

review process for unsuccessful applicants. Therefore, the final 

regulations establish processes and procedures for a second review of 

unsuccessful applications. The new application for UB grant 

competitions will include the changes to the selection criteria and 

describe the processes and procedures for the second review of 

unsuccessful applications.

 The HEOA made changes to applicant eligibility and the outcome 

criteria. To better align the selection criteria with these statutory 

changes, we revised the following selection criteria: Sec. Sec. 

645.31(b) (Objectives) and 645.31(d)(2) (Applicant and community 

support). The revised selection criteria replace the criteria in 

current Sec. Sec. 645.31(b) and 645.31(d)(2).

 In addition, the application will describe the procedures an 

unsuccessful applicant must follow to request a second review of its 
application. Under the regulations, only those applicants in the 

``funding band'' will be eligible to request a second review. As 

described in the final regulations, the Department will notify an 

unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its application 

and the ``funding band'' for the second review and provide copies of 

the peer reviewers' evaluations of the application and the applicant's 

PE scores, if applicable. The applicant will be given at least 15

calendar days after receiving notification that its application was not 

funded in which to submit a written request for a second review in 

accordance with the instructions and due date provided in the 

Secretary's written notification. To be considered for a second review, 

an applicant will need to provide evidence demonstrating that the 

Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made a 

technical, administrative or scoring error in the processing or review 

of the application. The applicant, however, will not be permitted to 

submit any additional data or information related to the criteria used 

to evaluate the quality of the application that was not included in its 

original application.

 The Department does not expect these changes to the selection 

criteria to increase an applicant's paperwork burden. However, we 

estimate that approximately two percent of the applications received 

under each competition for UB grants will score within the ``funding 

band.'' For each applicant in the ``funding band'' that requests a 

second review, we estimate an additional burden of two hours, which 

includes the time an applicant would need to review the peer reviewers' 

evaluations and, if applicable, the PE assessment and submit a written 

request for a second review. This will result in a total burden 

increase of 80 hours for the revised application, which will be 

reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW4.

 A separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to 

solicit public comment on the new application form to be used for the 

next competition for new UB grants currently scheduled for fall 2011.

Sections 646.11, 646.21 and 646.24 (SSS)--The assurances and other 

information an applicant must include in an application, the selection 

criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a new grant 

and the second review process for unsuccessful applicants.

 The final SSS regulations amend the selection criteria the 

Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a new grant to address 

statutory changes resulting from the HEOA and add the statutory 

requirement that an applicant include in its application a description 

of its efforts in providing participants with sufficient financial 

assistance. Further, section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by 

the HEOA, has added requirements for a formal second review process for 

unsuccessful applicants. Therefore, the final regulations include a new 

section that establishes processes and procedures for a second review 

of unsuccessful applications. The new application will include the 

changes to the selection criteria and describe the processes and 

procedures for the second review of unsuccessful applications.

 The HEOA made changes to the outcome criteria. To better align the 

selection criteria with these statutory changes and current practice, 

we revised Sec. 646.21(b) (Objectives). In addition, we have revised 

Sec. 646.11 to include the requirement that the applicant discuss in 

its application its efforts to provide participants sufficient 

financial assistance.

 The application for SSS grants will describe the procedures an 

unsuccessful applicant must follow to request a second review of its 

application. Under the SSS regulations, only those applicants in the 
``funding band'' are eligible to request a second review. As described 

in the regulations, the Department will notify an unsuccessful 

applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the 

``funding band'' for the second review and provide copies of the peer 

reviewers' evaluations of the application and the applicant's PE 

scores, if applicable. The applicant will be given at least 15 calendar 

days after receiving notification that its application was not funded 

in which to submit a written request for a second review in accordance 

with the instructions and due date provided in the Secretary's written 

notification. To be considered for a second review, an applicant must 

provide evidence demonstrating that the Department, an agent of the 

Department, or a peer reviewer made a technical, administrative, or 

scoring error in the processing or review of the application. The 

applicant, however, will not be permitted to submit any additional data 

or information related to the criteria used to evaluate the quality of 

the application that was not included in its original application.

 The Department does not expect the changes to the SSS selection 

criteria or the assurances that an applicant must provide in its 

application will increase an applicant's paperwork burden. However, we 

estimate that approximately two percent of the applications received 

under each competition for SSS grants will score within the ``funding 

band'' and be eligible for a second review. For each applicant in the 

``funding band'' that requests a second review, we estimate

[[Page 65762]]

an additional burden of two hours, which includes the time an applicant 

would need to review the peer reviewers' evaluations and, if 

applicable, the PE assessment and submit a written request for a second 

review. This will result in a total burden increase of 66 hours for the 

revised application, which will be reflected in a new OMB Control 

Number 1840-NEW5.

 A separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to 

solicit public comment on the new application form to be used for the 

next competition for new SSS grants currently scheduled for fall 2014.

Sections 647.21 and 647.24 (McNair)--Selection criteria the Secretary 

uses to evaluate an application for a new grant and the second review 

process for unsuccessful applicants.

 The final McNair regulations amend the selection criteria the 

Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a new grant to address 

statutory changes resulting from the HEOA. Further, section 

402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, added requirements 

for a formal second review final for unsuccessful applicants. 

Therefore, the final McNair regulations establish processes and 

procedures for a second review of unsuccessful applications. The new 

application will describe the changes to the selection criteria and the 

processes and procedures for the second review of unsuccessful 

applications.

 The HEOA made changes to the outcome criteria. To better align the 

selection criteria for McNair with these statutory changes and current 

practice, we revised Sec. 647.21(b) (Objectives).

 In addition, the McNair grant application will describe the 

procedures an unsuccessful applicant must follow to request a second 

review of its application. Under the final regulations, only those 

applicants in the ``funding band'' will be eligible to request a second 

review. As described in the final regulations, the Department will 

notify an unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its 
application and the ``funding band'' for the second review and provide 

copies of the peer reviewers' evaluations of the application and the 

applicant's PE scores, if applicable. The applicant will be given at 

least 15 calendar days after receiving notification that its 

application was not funded in which to submit a written request for a 

second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided 

in the Secretary's written notification. To be considered for a second 

review, an applicant will need to provide evidence demonstrating that 

the Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made a 

technical, administrative or scoring error in the processing or review 

of the application. The applicant, however, will not be permitted to 

submit any additional data or information related to the criteria used 

to evaluate the quality of the application that was not included in its 

original application.

 The Department does not expect the changes to the selection 

criteria for the McNair program to increase an applicant's paperwork 

burden. However, we estimate that approximately two percent of the 

applications received under each competition for McNair grants will 

score within the ``funding band.'' For each applicant in the ``funding 

band'' that requests a second review, we estimate an additional burden 

of two hours, which includes the time an applicant would need to review 

the peer reviewers' evaluations and, if applicable, the PE assessment 

and submit a written request for a second review. This will result in a 

total burden increase of 16 hours for the revised application, which 

will be reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW6. A separate 30-

day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public comment 

on the new application form for the next competition for new McNair 

grants currently scheduled for winter 2012.

Section 642.22 (Training)--How does the Secretary evaluate prior 

experience?

 The HEA does not establish specific outcome criteria for the 

Training program; the program outcome criteria for evaluating a 

grantee's PE are established in the regulations.

 Under the final regulations for the Training program, we will award 

PE points for each criterion by determining whether the grantee met or 

exceeded applicable project objectives. This determination will be 

based on the information the grantee submits in its APRs. The 

regulations amend the PE criteria the Secretary uses to award PE points 

as follows.

 For Training (Newly redesignated Sec. 642.20 and 642.22), we 

clarified the PE criteria and updated the regulations to reflect the 

maximum number of PE points a Training program grantee may earn. The 

maximum number of points changes from 8 points to 15 points.

 The burden hour estimate associated with this APR is reported under 

OMB Control Number 1894-0003, the Department's generic performance 

report Standard 524B form. The Department does not expect the changes 

reflected in this provision to increase burden.

Sections 643.22 and 643.32 (TS)--How does the Secretary evaluate prior 

experience? and New recordkeeping requirement.

 Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 

HEOA, provides specific outcome criteria to be used to determine an 

entity's PE of high quality service delivery and for the purpose of 

reporting annually to Congress on the performance of the TS program. 

Prior to the enactment of the HEOA, the PE criteria were established 

only in the regulations.

 Under the final TS regulations, we will award PE points for each 

criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable 
project objectives. This determination will be based on the information 

the grantee submits in its APRs. The regulations amend the criteria the 

Secretary uses to award PE points.

 The final TS regulations amend the PE criteria to address statutory 

changes resulting from the HEOA. The new statutory outcome and PE 

criteria for TS require grantees to report on: (1) Secondary school 

persistence of participants; (2) secondary school graduation of 

participants with regular secondary school diploma; (3) secondary 

school graduation of participants in a rigorous secondary school 

program of study; (4) the postsecondary enrollment of participants; and 

(5) the postsecondary completion of participants.

 We also amended the recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 643.32(c) 

to require that a TS grantee, to the extent practicable, keep a record 

of any services its participants receive during the project year from 

another Federal TRIO program or other federally funded program serving 

similar populations.

 Currently one APR form is used for both the TS and EOC programs. 

Because of the changes to TS, the Department plans to develop a new APR 

for TS. The Department expects the reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for TS to increase the reporting burden for this new data 

collection to 16 hours for each grantee. This will result in a total 

burden increase of 7,520 hours for the new APR, which will be reflected 

in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW7. A separate 60-day Federal 

Register notice followed by a 30-day Federal Register notice will be 

published to solicit public comment on the new APR form several months 

prior to its first use in fall 2012.

[[Page 65763]]

Sections 644.22 and 644.32 (EOC)--How does the Secretary evaluate prior 

experience? and New recordkeeping requirement.

 Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 

HEOA, provides specific outcome criteria to be used to determine an 

entity's PE of high quality service delivery and for the purpose of 

reporting annually to Congress on the performance of the EOC program. 

Prior to the HEOA, the PE criteria were established only in the 

regulations.

 Under the final EOC regulations, we will award PE points for each 

criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable 

project objectives. This determination will be based on the information 

the grantee submits in its APRs. The final regulations amend the 

criteria the Secretary uses to award PE points.

 We also amended the recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 644.32(c) 

to require that an EOC grantee, to the extent practicable, keep a 

record of any services its participants receive during the project year 

from another Federal TRIO program or other federally funded program 

serving similar populations.

 The new statutory PE criteria are similar to the current regulatory 

PE criteria for the EOC program (see current Sec. 644.22); therefore, 

the Department does not expect the changes in Sec. 644.22 to increase 

the burden on an EOC grantee. However, the Department expects the new 

recordkeeping requirements for EOC to increase the reporting burden by 

2 hours per grantee (248 total hours). However, when a new TS APR is 

developed, the current TS/EOC form will not be used by TS grantees; 

therefore, we expect a burden decrease for this data collection of 

2,820 hours; therefore, the net reduction in burden hours will be 

2,572, which will be reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW8.
 A separate 60-day Federal Register notice followed by a 30-day 

Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public comment on 

the new APR form several months prior to its first use in fall 2012.

Sections 645.32 and 645.43 (UB)--How does the Secretary evaluate prior 

experience? and New recordkeeping requirement.

 Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 

HEOA, provides specific outcome criteria to be used to determine an 

entity's PE of high quality service delivery and for the purpose of 

reporting annually to Congress on the performance of the UB program. 

Prior to the enactment of the HEOA, the PE criteria were established 

only in the regulations.

 Under the final regulations for the UB program, we award PE points 

for each criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded 

applicable project objectives. This determination will be based on the 

information the grantee submits in its APR. The final regulations amend 

the criteria the Secretary uses to award PE points.

 Revisions in the PE criteria are needed to address statutory 

changes resulting from the HEOA. The new statutory outcome PE criteria 

for UB require grantees to report on: (1) The academic performance of 

participants; (2) secondary school retention and graduation of 

participants; (3) completion by participants of a rigorous secondary 

school program of study; (4) the postsecondary enrollment of 

participants; and (5) the postsecondary completion of participants.

 We also amended the recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 645.43(c) 

to require that an UB grantee, to the extent practicable, keep a record 

of any services its participants receive during the project year from 

another Federal TRIO program or other federally funded program serving 

similar populations.

 The Department expects the new requirements that a grantee report 

on the completion of a rigorous secondary school program of study and 

postsecondary completion of participants and the new recordkeeping 

requirements to increase the reporting burden for this data collection 

by eight hours for each grantee. This will result in a total burden 

increase of 9,144 hours for the revised APR, which will be reflected in 

a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW9.

 A separate 60-day Federal Register notice followed by a 30-day 

Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public comment on 

the new APR form several months prior to its first use in fall 2013.

Sections 646.22, 646.32 and 646.33 (SSS)--How does the Secretary 

evaluate prior experience? New recordkeeping requirement and Addition 

of the statutory matching requirements for grantees that use Federal 

SSS funds for Grant aid.

 Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 

HEOA, provides specific outcome criteria to be used to determine an 

entity's prior experience of high quality service delivery and for the 

purpose of reporting annually to Congress on the performance of the SSS 

program. Prior to the HEOA, the PE criteria were established only in 

the regulations.

 Under the final regulations for the SSS program, we award PE points 

for each criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded 

applicable project objectives. This determination will be based on the 

information the grantee submits in its APR. The final regulations amend 

the criteria the Secretary uses to award PE points.

 Revisions in the PE criteria are needed to address statutory 

changes resulting from the HEOA. The statutory outcome PE criteria for 

the SSS program requires grantees to report on baccalaureate degree 

competition for participants at four-year institutions and certificate 
and associate degree completion and transfers to four-year institutions 

for participants at two-year institutions. The Department expects that 

these requirements for tracking the academic progress of SSS 

participants through degree completion to increase the reporting burden 

by six hours for each grantee.

 We have amended the recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 646.32(c) 

to require that a SSS grantee, to the extent practicable, keep a record 

of any services its participants receive during the project year from 

another Federal TRIO program or other federally funded program serving 

similar populations. We estimated that this new recordkeeping 

requirement will increase the reporting burden by two hours per 

grantee.

 We also added new Sec. 646.33 to incorporate the statutory 

provisions that permit a grantee to use Federal grant funds to provide 

grant aid to students. Many grantees that use program funds for grant 

aid must provide a non-Federal match, in cash, of not less than 33 

percent of the Federal funds used for grant aid. A grant recipient that 

is an institution of higher education eligible to receive funds under 

part A or B of title III or title V of the HEA is not required to match 

the Federal funds used for grant aid. For those grantees that are 

required to provide matching funds for grant aid (estimated at 50 

percent of SSS grantees), we estimate that these regulations will 

increase the burden by two hours per grantee.

 The combined increase will result in a total burden increase of 

9,234 hours for the revised APR, which will be reflected in a new OMB 

Control Number 1840-NEW10. A separate 60-day Federal Register notice 

followed by a 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to 

solicit public comment on the new APR form several months prior to its 

first use in fall 2011.

[[Page 65764]]

Sections 647.22 and 647.32 (McNair)--How does the Secretary evaluate 

prior experience? and New recordkeeping requirement.

 Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 

HEOA, provides specific outcome criteria for the McNair program to be 

used to determine an entity's PE of high quality service delivery and 

for the purpose of reporting annually to Congress on the performance of 

the McNair program. Prior to the HEOA, the PE criteria were established 

only in the regulations.

 Under the final regulations for the McNair program, we award PE 

points for each criterion by determining whether the grantee met or 

exceeded applicable project objectives. This determination will be 

based on the information the grantee submits in its APR. The 

regulations amend the criteria the Secretary uses to award PE points.

 The Department expects the new statutory requirements that include 

long-term tracking of the academic progress of McNair participants 

through completion of the doctoral degree will increase the reporting 

burden for this data collection by four hours per grantee. We have also 

amended the recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 647.32(c) to require 

that a McNair grantee, to the extent practicable, keep a record of any 

services its participants receive during the project year from another 

Federal TRIO program or other federally funded program serving similar 

populations. We estimated that this new recordkeeping requirement will 

increase the reporting burden by two hours per grantee.

 The combined increase will result in a total burden increase of 

1,200 hours for the revised APR, which will be reflected in a new OMB 
Control Number 1840-NEW11. A separate 60-day Federal Register notice 

followed by a 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to 

solicit public comment on the new APR form several months prior to its 

first use in either fall 2013.

Part 694--GEAR UP

Sections 694.7, 694.8 and 694.9--Matching Requirements for GEAR UP 

grants

 The final regulations provide that an applicant for GEAR UP funding 

must state in its application the percentage of the cost of the GEAR UP 

project that the applicant will provide from non-Federal funds. The 

final regulations also provide that the Secretary may waive a portion 

of the matching requirement in response to a grantee's written request 

for a waiver of the match. The final regulations further provide the 

conditions that must be met for the Secretary to approve a request to 

waive a portion of the matching requirement and that if the Secretary 

grants a tentative waiver to a new grantee for the full project period 

because of a pre-existing or ongoing economic hardship, the recipient 

will need to submit documentation every two years to demonstrate that 

conditions have not changed.

 The final regulations will provide that an applicant for GEAR UP 

funding must state in its application the percentage of the cost of the 

GEAR UP project that the application will provide from non-Federal 

funds. We estimate that this requirement will increase burden by 12.5 

hours for each GEAR UP applicant in OMB Control Number 1840-New12, for 

a total burden increase of 6,250 hours, based on 500 applicants. A 

separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit 

public comment on the revised application form prior to its usage, 

currently estimated to be spring 2011.

 The final regulations also will provide that the Secretary may 

waive a portion of the matching requirement in response to a written 

request for a waiver of the match. This written request can be included 

in the application or submitted separately. If granted a waiver of the 

matching requirement, GEAR UP grantees will spend significantly less 

time collecting and documenting matching funds. We estimate that the 

final changes will decrease burden by 500 hours for each GEAR UP 

grantee in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW13, resulting in a total burden 

decrease of 7,860 hours, and likewise in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW14, 

resulting in a total burden decrease of 5,625. A separate 60-day 

Federal Register notice followed by a 30-day Federal Register notice 

will be published to solicit public comment on the revised APR and FPR 

forms prior to their usage, currently estimated to be spring 2012.

Section 694.16(c)--Scholarship Reporting Requirements

 The final regulations require grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant 

awards were made on or after August 14, 2008 and grantees whose initial 

GEAR UP grant awards were made prior to August 14, 2008, but who, 

pursuant to Sec. 694.12(b)(2), elect to make scholarships pursuant to 

the HEOA requirements, to furnish information as the Secretary may 

require on the amount of any Federal and non-Federal funds reserved and 

held for GEAR UP scholarships and the disbursement of these scholarship 

funds. Reporting will be required until these funds are fully expended 

or, if Federal funds, returned to the Secretary.

 We estimate that these final changes will increase burden by 400 

hours for each GEAR UP grantee in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW13, 

resulting in a total burden increase of 8,760, and by 800 hours for 

each grantee in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW14, resulting in a total 
burden increase of 6,925. A separate 60-day Federal Register notice 

followed by a 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to 

solicit public comment on the revised APR and FPR forms prior to their 

usage, currently estimated to be spring 2012.

Section 694.19--What priorities does the Secretary establish for a GEAR 

UP grant?

 The final regulations will provide that the Secretary awards 

competitive preference priority points to an eligible applicant for a 

State grant that has carried out a successful State GEAR UP grant prior 

to August 14, 2008 and has a prior, demonstrated commitment to early 

intervention leading to college access through collaboration and 

replication of successful strategies.

 Applicants will respond to these priorities as part of their 

applications in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW12, which will increase 

total burden by 6,250 hours. A separate 30-day Federal Register notice 

will be published to solicit public comment on the revised application 

form prior to its usage, currently estimated to be spring 2011.

Section 694.20--When may a GEAR UP grantee provide services to students 

attending an institution of higher education?

 Under the final regulations, GEAR UP applicants will be permitted 

to request in their applications a seventh year of funding so that the 

State or Partnership may continue to provide services to students 

through their first year of attendance at an institution of higher 

education.

 We estimate that the final changes will increase burden by 300 

hours in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW12 for each GEAR UP applicant for a 

total burden increase of 150,000 hours. A separate 30-day Federal 

Register notice will be published to solicit public comment on the 

revised application form prior to its usage, currently estimated to be 

spring 2011.

 Consistent with this discussion, the following chart describes the 

sections of the final regulations involving information collections, 

the information being collected, and the collections that the 

Department will submit to OMB for

[[Page 65765]]

approval and public comment under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

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

 Collection OMB

 Regulation section Information section control number

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

Sections 642.21 and 642.25 The final 1840-NEW1 (Training

(Training). regulations amend This is a new

 the selection collection. The

criteria the final regulations

Secretary uses to will affect

 evaluate an applicant burden in

 application for a two ways. First,

Training grant. The the elimination of

final regulations the Need selection

add a new section criterion reduces

that establishes the amount of

processes and information an

procedures for a applicant must
 review of include in its

unsuccessful application,

applications. resulting in an

 estimated burden

 reduction of 240

hours.

 Additionally, the

final regulatory

processes and

procedures for a

 second review of

unsuccessful

applications will

lead to an

 estimated burden

increase of 12

hours (or, an

estimated two

 burden hour

increase for each

of the estimated

six applicants that

will fall within an

estimated 10

percent funding

 band under the

second review

process).

 In total, there will

 be an estimated

 decrease in burden

of 228 hours.

Sections 643.21 and 643.24 The final 1840-NEW2 (TS) This

(TS). regulations amend will be a new

 the selection collection. The

criteria the Department has

Secretary uses to already solicited

evaluate an public comments in

application for a a separate 30-day

TS grant. The final Federal Register

 regulations also notice that was

 add a new section published August 5,

that establishes 2010 on the new

processes and application process

procedures for a that will be used

review of for the FY 2011

unsuccessful competition for new

applications. TS grants; the

 estimated deadline

date for receiving

applications is

 December 2010. The

Department does not

expect that changes

 to the selection

criteria will

change an
 applicant's

paperwork burden.

The final

regulatory

processes and

procedures for a

second review of

unsuccessful

 applications will

lead to an

estimated burden

increase of 60

 hours (or, an

estimated two

burden hour

increase for each

 of the estimated 30

applicants that

will fall within an

 estimated two

percent funding

band under the

second review

 process).

 In total, there will

 be an estimated

burden increase of

60 hours.

Sections 644.21 and 644.24 The final 1840-NEW3 (EOC) This

(EOC). regulations amend will be a new

 the selection collection. A

criteria the separate 30-day

Secretary uses to Federal Register

evaluate an notice will be

application for an published to

EOC grant. The solicit comments on

final regulations this form prior to

add a new section the next

 that establishes competition for new

 processes and grants scheduled

procedures for a for winter 2011.

review of

 unsuccessful

 applications.

 The Department does

 not expect that the

 final amendments to

the selection

criteria will

change an

applicant's

paperwork burden.

The final

regulatory

processes and

procedures for a

second review of
 unsuccessful

 applications will

lead to an

estimated burden

 increase of 20

hours (or, an

estimated two

burden hour

 increase for each

of the estimated 10

applicants that

will fall within an

estimated two

percent funding

band under the

 second review

process).

 In total, there will

be an estimated

burden increase of

20 hours.

Sections 645.31 and 645.35 The final 1840-NEW4 (UB) This

(UB). regulations amend will be a new

 the selection collection. A

criteria the separate 30-day

Secretary uses to Federal Register

evaluate an notice will be

application for a published to

UB grant. The final solicit comments on

regulations also this form prior to

 add a new section the next

 that establishes competition for new

processes and grants scheduled

procedures for a for fall 2011.

review of

unsuccessful

applications.

 The Department does

 not expect that

 final amendments to

the selection

criteria will

 change an

applicant's

paperwork burden.

The final

regulatory

processes and

procedures for a

second review of

unsuccessful

applications will

lead to an

 estimated burden

increase of 80

hours (or, an

estimated two
 burden hour

 increase for each

of the estimated 40

applicants that

 will fall within an

estimated two

percent funding

 band under the

second review

process).

 In total, there will

be an estimated

burden increase of

80 hours.

Sections 646.11; 646.21 and The final 1840-NEW5 (SSS) This

646.24 (SSS). regulations amend will be a new

 the selection collection. A

criteria the separate 30-day

Secretary uses to Federal Register

evaluate an notice will be

application for a published to

SSS grant and amend solicit comments on

 the assurance and this form prior to

 other information the next

an applicant must competition for new

include in its grants scheduled

application. The for fall 2014.

final regulations

also add a new

section that

establishes

processes and

procedures for a

review of

unsuccessful

applications.

[[Page 65766]]

 The Department does

 not expect that

amendments to the

 selection criteria

or the assurance

that an applicant

must describe in

 its application

regarding its

efforts to provide

participants with

sufficient

financial

assistance will

change an

applicant's

paperwork burden.
 The final

 regulatory

processes and

procedures for a

second review of

unsuccessful

applications will

lead to an

estimated burden

increase of 66

hours (or, an

estimated two

 burden hour

increase for each

of the estimated 33

applicants that

 will fall within an

estimated two

percent funding

band under the

second review

process).

 In total, there will

 be an estimated

 burden increase of

66 hours.

Sections 647.21 and 647.24 The final 1840-NEW6 (McNair)

(Mc Nair). regulations amend This will be a new

 the selection collection. A

criteria the separate 30-day

Secretary uses to Federal Register

evaluate an notice will be

application for a published to

McNair grant. The solicit comments on

regulations also this form prior to

add a new section the next

that establishes competition for new

processes and grants scheduled

 procedures for a for winter 2012.

 review of The Department does

unsuccessful not expect that

applications. amendments to the

 selection criteria

 will change an

applicant's

 paperwork burden.

The final

regulatory

processes and

 procedures for a

second review of

unsuccessful

applications will

 lead to an

estimated burden

increase of 16

hours (or, an
 estimated two

burden hour

increase for each

of the estimated

eight applicants

that will fall

within an estimated

 two percent funding

band under the

second review

process).

 In total, there will

be an estimated

burden increase of

16 hours.

Section 642.22 (Training)... The final 1894-0003 (Training)

 regulations amend The Department will

the PE criteria the continue to use the

 Secretary uses to Department's

 award PE points. generic performance

Under the final report for the

regulations, we Training program.

award PE points for The final changes

each criterion by reflected in this

determining whether provision are

the grantee met or editorial in

exceeded applicable nature. There will

project objectives. be no increase in

This determination estimated burden

 will be based on hours.

 the information the

grantee submits in

its annual

performance report.

Sections 643.22 (TS) and The final 1840-NEW7 (TS) This

643.32. regulations amend will be a new

 the PE criteria the collection. A

Secretary uses to separate 60-day

 award PE points. Federal Register

 Under the final notice will be

regulations we published to

award PE points for solicit comments on

each criterion by this form following

determining whether the next

the grantee met or competition for new

exceeded applicable TS grants. The

project objectives. revised APR is

This determination needed for fall

will be based on 2012 data

the information the collection. The

grantee submits in final regulations

its annual will increase

performance report. grantee data

 collection and

reporting

requirements in two

 ways. First, the
 final regulatory

amendments to the

PE criteria, which

 address statutory

changes that expand

outcome and PE

 criteria for TS

grantees to include

such measures as

the postsecondary

 completion of

participants, are

expected to

increase grantees'

 reporting burden.

 The final Additionally, the

 regulations also final regulatory

amend the amendments to

recordkeeping recordkeeping

requirements for TS requirements will

 require that a TS

 grantee document

the services a

student, who is

 served by more than

one TRIO or other

federally funded

program, is

 receiving from

another program

during the project

year. This is a new

data collection

that also will

increase grantees'

 burden hours. The

Department expects

these two changes

to result in an

increase of 16

burden hours per

grantee.

 In total, for 470

grantees, there

will be an

estimated burden

increase of 7,520

hours.

Sections 644.22 and 644.32 The final 1840-NEW8 (EOC) This

(EOC). regulations amend will be a new

 the PE criteria the collection. A

Secretary uses to separate 60-day

award PE points. Federal Register

 Under the final notice will be

 regulations we published to

award PE points for solicit comments on

each criterion by this form following
 determining whether the next

the grantee met or competition for new

exceeded applicable EOC grants.The

project objectives. revised APR is

This determination needed for fall

will be based on 2012 data

the information the collection.

grantee submits in

its annual

performance report.

 The final Because the new

 regulations also statutory PE

amend the criteria are

recordkeeping similar to the

requirements for current regulatory

EOC. PE criteria, the

 Department does not

expect the changes

to affect the

 burden on EOC

grantees.

[[Page 65767]]

 However, the final

 regulatory

amendments to the

recordkeeping

requirements will

 require that an EOC

grantee document

the services a

student, who is

served by more than

one TRIO or other

federally funded

 program, is

receiving from

another program

during the project

 year. This is a new

data collection

that will increase

grantee's burden

hours by two hours

per grantee (248

total hours for 124

 grantees).

 However, when a new

 TS APR is

developed, the

 current TS/EOC form

will not be used by

TS grantees;

therefore, we

 expect a burden
 decrease for this

data collection of

2,820 hours; the

net reduction in

burden hours will

 be 2,572, which

will be reflected

in a new OMB

Control Number 1840-

 NEW8.

Sections 645.32 and 645.43 The final 1840-NEW9 (UB) This

(UB). regulations amend will be a new

 the PE criteria the collection. A

 Secretary uses to separate 60-day

 award PE points. Federal Register

Under the final notice will be

regulations we published to

award PE points for solicit comments on

each criterion by this form following

determining whether the next

the grantee met or competition for new

exceeded applicable UB grants.The

project objectives. revised APR is

This determination needed for fall

 will be based on 2013 data

 the information the collection.

grantee submits in

its annual

performance report.

 The final The final regulatory

 regulations also amendments to the

amend the PE criteria, which

recordkeeping address statutory

requirements for UB. changes that expand

 outcome and PE

criteria for UB

 grantees to include

such measures as

the postsecondary

completion of

participants, are

expected to

increase grantees'

 reporting burden.

The Department

expects changes to

result in an

 increase of six

burden hours per

grantee.

 The final regulatory

amendments to

recordkeeping

 requirements will

require that a UB

grantee document
 the services a

 student, who is

served by more than

one TRIO or other

federally funded

program, is

receiving from

another program

 during the project

year. This is a new

data collection

that also will

 increase a

grantee's burden by

an estimated two

hours.

 In total, there will

be an estimated

burden increase of

eight hours per

grantee for a total

increase of 9,144

 hours for 1,143

grantees.

Sections 646.22, 646.32 and The final 1840-NEW10 (SSS)

646.33 (SSS). regulations amend This will be a new

 the PE criteria the collection. A

 Secretary uses to separate 60-day

award PE points. Federal Register

Under the final notice will be

 regulations we published to

 award PE points for solicit comments on

each criterion by this form following

determining whether the next

the grantee met or competition for new

exceeded applicable SSS grants. The

project objectives. revised APR is

This determination needed for fall

will be based on 2011 data

the information the collection. The

grantee submits in final regulations

 its annual will increase

 performance report. grantee data

 collection and

reporting

requirements in

three ways.

 The final First, the

 regulations amend regulatory

the recordkeeping amendments to the

requirements for PE criteria, which

SSS and also add a address statutory

new section on requirements for

matching tracking the

requirements for academic progress

SSS. of SSS participants

 through degree
 completion, will

increase the

reporting burden by

six hours for each

grantee.

 Second, the final

 regulatory

 amendments to

recordkeeping

requirements will

 require that a SSS

grantee document

the services a

student, who is

served by more than

one TRIO or other

federally funded

 program, is

receiving from

another program

during the project

 year. This is a new

data collection

that also will

increase a

 grantee's burden by

an estimated two

hours.

 Additionally, for

those grantees that

are required to

provide matching

 funds for grant aid

(estimated at 50

percent of SSS

grantees), the

 final regulations

will increase

burden by an

estimated two hours

per grantee.

 In total, there will

 be an estimated

 burden increase of

9,234 hours for

1,026 grantees.

Sections 647.22 and 647.32 The final 1840-NEW11 (McNair)

(Mc Nair). regulations amend This will be a new

 the PE criteria the collection. A

Secretary uses to separate 60-day

award PE points. Federal Register

Under the final notice will be

regulations we published to

award PE points for solicit comments on

each criterion by this form following

determining whether the next

the grantee met or competition for new
 exceeded applicable McNair grants. The

 project objectives. revised APR is

This determination needed for fall

will be based on 2013 data

 the information the collection. The

 grantee submits in regulatory

its annual amendments to the

performance report. PE criteria, which

 address statutory

requirements for

 long-term tracking

 of the academic

progress of McNair

participants

 through completion

of the doctoral

degree, will

increase the

 reporting burden by

four hours for each

grantee.

[[Page 65768]]

 Further, the final

 regulatory

amendments to

recordkeeping

 requirements will

require that a

McNair grantee

document the

services a student,

who is served by

more than one TRIO

 or other federally

funded program, is

receiving from

another program

 during the project

year. This is a new

data collection

that also will

increase a

grantee's burden by

an estimated two

 hours.

 In total, there will

 be an estimated

burden increase of

 six hours per

grantee for a total

of 1,200 hours for

200 grantees.

694.7, 694.8, and 694.9 GEAR The final 1840-NEW12 This will

UP. regulations will be a new
 provide that an collection. A

applicant for GEAR separate 30-day

UP funding must Federal Register

state in its notice will be

application the published to

percentage of the solicit comments on

cost of the GEAR UP this form prior to

project that the the next

application will competition for new

provide from non- grants scheduled

Federal funds. for spring 2011.

 The final In total, there will

 regulations also be an estimated

 will provide that burden increase of

the Secretary may 12.5 hours per

waive a portion of applicant for an

the matching estimated 500

requirement in applicants. There

response to a will be an

written request for estimated burden

a waiver of the increase of 6,250

match. This written hours.

request can be

included in the

application or

submitted

separately.

 The final 1840-NEW13 This will

 regulations will be a new

 also provide the collection. A

conditions that separate 60-day

must be met for the Federal Register

Secretary to notice will be

approve a request published to

to waive a portion solicit comments on

of the matching this form following

requirement. the next

 competition for new

GEAR UP grants. If

 granted a waiver of

the matching

requirement, GEAR

UP grantees will

spend significantly

less time

collecting and

 documenting

matching funds. In

total, there will

be an estimated

burden decrease of

46.5 hours per

grantee for an

 estimated 169

grantees. There

will be an

estimated burden
 decrease of 7,860

 hours.

 1840-NEW14 This will

 be a new

 collection. A

separate 60-day

Federal Register

notice will be

 published to

solicit comments on

this form following

 the next

competition for new

GEAR UP grants.

 The final

 regulations provide

 that an applicant

for GEAR UP funding

must state in its

application the

percentage of the

cost of the GEAR UP

 project that the

applicant will

provide from nonFederal funds. The

 final regulations

also provide that

the Secretary may

waive a portion of

the matching

requirement in

response to a

 grantee's written

request for a

waiver of the

match. The final

 regulations further

provide the

conditions that

must be met for the

Secretary to

approve a request

to waive a portion

 of the matching

requirement and

that if the

Secretary grants a

 tentative waiver to

a new grantee for

the full project

period because of a

pre-existing or

ongoing economic

hardship, the

 recipient will need

to submit
 documentation every

two years to

 demonstrate that

conditions have not

changed. In total,

there will be an

estimated burden

decrease of 56.25

per grantee for an

estimated 100

grantees.There will

be an estimated

 burden decrease of

5,625 hours.

694.16...................... The final 1840-NEW13 This will

 regulations will be a new

 require grantees collection. A

 whose initial GEAR separate 60-day

UP grant awards Federal Register

were made on or notice will be

 after August 14, published to

 2008 and grantees solicit comments on

whose initial GEAR this form following

UP grant awards the next

were made prior to competition for new

August 14, 2008 but GEAR UP grants. In

who, pursuant to total, there will

Sec. be an estimated

694.12(b)(2), elect burden increase of

to use the Sec. 87.6 hours per

694.14 requirements grantee for an

 (rather than the estimated 100

 Sec. 694.13 grantees. There

requirements) to will be an

furnish information estimated burden

on the amount of increase of 8,760

any Federal and non- hours.

Federal funds

reserved and held

 for GEAR UP

 scholarships and

the disbursement of

these scholarship

funds until these

funds are fully

expended or

returned to the

Secretary.

 1840-NEW14 This will

 be a new

 collection. A

separate 60-day

Federal Register

 notice will be

published to

solicit comments on

this form following
 the next

 competition for new

GEAR grants. There

will be an

estimated burden

increase of 6,925

hours.

[[Page 65769]]

 The final

 regulations require

grantees whose

initial GEAR UP

 grant awards were

made on or after

August 14, 2008 and

grantees whose

initial GEAR UP

grant awards were

made prior to

 August 14, 2008, to

provide information

as the Secretary

may require on the

 amount of any

Federal and nonFederal funds

reserved and held

for GEAR UP

scholarships and

 the disbursement of

these scholarship

funds. Reporting

will be required

 until these funds

are fully expended

or, if Federal

funds, returned to

the Secretary.

694.19...................... The final 1840-NEW12 This will

 regulations provide be a new

that the Secretary collection. A

awards competitive separate 30-day

preference priority Federal Register

points to an notice will be

 eligible applicant published to

 for a State grant solicit comments on

that has carried this form prior to

out a successful the next

 State GEAR UP grant competition for new

 prior to August 14, grants scheduled

2008 and has a for spring 2011. In

prior, demonstrated total, there will

commitment to early be an estimated

intervention, burden increase of
 leading to college 5 hours per

access through applicant for an

collaboration and estimated 43

replication of applicants. There

 successful will be an

 strategies. estimated burden

 increase of 215

hours.

 The final

regulations will

provide that the

Secretary awards

 competitive

preference priority

points to an

eligible applicant

for a State grant

that has carried

out a successful

 State GEAR UP grant

prior to August 14,

2008 and has a

prior, demonstrated

commitment to early

intervention

leading to college

 access through

collaboration and

replication of

successful

 strategies.

694.20...................... The final 1840-NEW12 This will

 regulations permit be a new

GEAR UP applicants collection. A

 to request in their separate 30-day

 applications a Federal Register

seventh year of notice will be

funding so that the published to

 State or solicit comments on

 Partnership may this form prior to

continue to provide the next

services to competition for new

students through grants scheduled

their first year of for spring 2011. In

attendance at an total, there will

institution of be an estimated

higher education. burden increase of

 300 hours for each

 applicant for an

estimated 500

applicants. There

will be an

 estimated burden

increase of 150,000

hours.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intergovernmental Review

 This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the 

Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and 

local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 

financial assistance.

 In accordance with the order, we intend this document to provide 

early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for 

these programs.

Assessment of Educational Impact

 In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions 

Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, and based on our own review, we have determined 

that these final regulations do not require transmission of information 

that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or 

makes available.

Electronic Access to This Document

 You can view this document, as well as all other Department of 

Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe 

Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: 

http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister. To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.

 Note: The official version of this document is the document

published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the

official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal

Regulations is available on GPO Access at: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers HEP/CAMP: 84.141A, 

84.149A; TRIO: 84.042A, 84.044A, 84.047A, 84.047M, 84.047V, 84.066A, 

84.103A, 84.217A; GEAR UP: 84.334A, 84.334S.)

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Parts 206, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 

and 694

 Colleges and universities, Disadvantaged students, Educational 

programs, Discretionary grants, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Training.

 Dated: September 23, 2010.

Arne Duncan,

Secretary of Education.

0

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends parts 

206, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, and 694 of title 34 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 206--SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES 

ARE ENGAGED IN MIGRANT AND OTHER SEASONAL FARMWORK--HIGH SCHOOL 
EQUIVALENCY PROGRAM AND COLLEGE ASSISTANCE MIGRANT PROGRAM

0

1. The authority citation for part 206 continues to read as follows:

 Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2, unless otherwise noted.

0

2. Section 206.3 is amended by:

0

A. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the word ``parent'' and adding, in its 

place, the words ``immediate family member''.

0

B. Revising paragraph (a)(2).

 The revision reads as follows:

Sec. 206.3 Who is eligible to participate in a project?

 (a) * * *

 (2) The person must have participated (with respect to HEP within 

the last 24 months), or be eligible to participate, in programs under 

34 CFR part 200, subpart C (Title I--Migrant Education Program) or 20 

CFR part 633 (Employment and Training Administration, Department of 

Labor--Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Programs).

* * * * *

[[Page 65770]]

0

3. Section 206.4 is amended by:

0

A. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) as paragraphs (a)(7) and 

(a)(8), respectively.

0

B. Adding a new paragraph (a)(6).

0

C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(9) through (a)(11).

 The additions read as follows:

Sec. 206.4 What regulations apply to these programs?

* * * * *

 (a) * * *

 (6) 34 CFR part 84 (Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free 

Workplace (Financial Assistance)).

* * * * *

 (9) 34 CFR part 97 (Protection of Human Subjects).

 (10) 34 CFR part 98 (Student Rights in Research, Experimental 

Programs, and Testing).

 (11) 34 CFR part 99 (Family Educational Rights and Privacy).

* * * * *

0
4. Section 206.5 is amended by:

0

A. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(5), (c)(6), and (c)(7) as paragraphs 

(c)(6), (c)(7), and (c)(8), respectively.

0

B. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).

0

C. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(7), removing the citation 

``(c)(7)'' and adding, in its place, the citation ``(c)(8)''.

0

D. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (c)(8).

0

E. In paragraph (d)--

0

1. Removing the citation ``34 CFR 201.3'' and adding, in its place, the 

citation ``34 CFR 200.81''; and

0

2. Removing the words ``Chapter 1'' and adding, in their place, the 

words ``Title I''.

 The addition and revisions read as follows:

Sec. 206.5 What definitions apply to these programs?

* * * * *

 (c) * * *

 (5) Immediate family member means one or more of the following:

 (i) A spouse.

 (ii) A parent, step-parent, adoptive parent, foster parent, or 

anyone with guardianship.

 (iii) Any person who--

 (A) Claims the individual as a dependent on a Federal income tax 

return for either of the previous two years, or

 (B) Resides in the same household as the individual, supports that 

individual financially, and is a relative of that individual.

* * * * *

 (8) Seasonal farmworker means a person whose primary employment was 

in farmwork on a temporary or seasonal basis (that is, not a constant 

year-round activity) for a period of at least 75 days within the past 

24 months.

* * * * *

0

5. Section 206.10 is amended by:

0

A. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B), adding the words ``(including 

preparation for college entrance examinations)'' after the word 

``program''.

0

B. In paragraph (b)(1)(v), removing the words ``Weekly stipends'' and 

adding, in their place, the word ``Stipends''.

0

C. In paragraph (b)(1)(viii), adding the words ``(such as 

transportation and child care)'' after the word ``services''.

0

D. In paragraph (b)(1), adding a new paragraph (ix).

0
E. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii) introductory text, adding the words ``to 

improve placement, persistence, and retention in postsecondary 

education'' after the word ``services''.

0

F. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A), by--

0

1. Removing the word ``and''; and

0

2. Adding the words ``economic education, or personal finance'' before 

the word ``counseling''.

0

G. In paragraph (b)(2)(iv), removing the word ``student'' and adding, 

in its place, the word ``students''.

0

H. Redesignating paragraph (b)(2)(vi) as paragraph (b)(2)(vii).

0

I. Adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(vi).

0

J. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(2)(vii), removing the words 

``support services'', and adding, in their place, the words ``essential 

supportive services (such as transportation and child care),''.

 The additions read as follows:

Sec. 206.10 What types of services may be provided?

* * * * *

 (b) * * *

 (1) * * *

 (ix) Other activities to improve persistence and retention in 

postsecondary education.

 (2)* * *

 (vi) Internships.

* * * * *

0

6. Section 206.11 is amended by:

0

A. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the word ``and'' after the 

punctuation``;''.

0

B. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the punctuation ``.'' after the word 

``aid'' and adding, in its place, the words ``, and coordinating those 

services, assistance, and aid with other non-program services, 

assistance, and aid, including services, assistance, and aid provided 

by community-based organizations, which may include mentoring and 

guidance; and''.

0

C. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3).

 The addition reads as follows:

Sec. 206.11 What types of CAMP services must be provided?

* * * * *

 (b) * * *

 (3) For students attending two-year institutions of higher 
education, encouraging the students to transfer to four-year 

institutions of higher education, where appropriate, and monitoring the 

rate of transfer of those students.

* * * * *

Sec. 206.20 [Amended]

0

7. Section 206.20(b)(2) is amended by removing the amount ``$150,000'' 

and adding, in its place, the amount ``$180,000''.

0

8. Section 206.31 is added to subpart D of part 206 to read as follows:

Sec. 206.31 How does the Secretary evaluate points for prior 

experience for HEP and CAMP service delivery?

 (a) In the case of an applicant for a HEP award, the Secretary 

considers the applicant's experience in implementing an expiring HEP 

project with respect to--

 (1) Whether the applicant served the number of participants 

described in its approved application;

 (2) The extent to which the applicant met or exceeded its funded 

objectives with regard to project participants, including the targeted 

number and percentage of--

 (i) Participants who received a general educational development 

(GED) credential; and

 (ii) GED credential recipients who were reported as entering 

postsecondary education programs, career positions, or the military; 

and

 (3) The extent to which the applicant met the administrative 

requirements, including recordkeeping, reporting, and financial 

accountability under the terms of the previously funded award.

 (b) In the case of an applicant for a CAMP award, the Secretary 

considers the applicant's experience in implementing an expiring CAMP 

project with respect to--

 (1) Whether the applicant served the number of participants 

described in its approved application;

 (2) The extent to which the applicant met or exceeded its funded 

objectives with regard to project participants, including the targeted 

number and percentage of participants who--

 (i) Successfully completed the first year of college; and

 (ii) Continued to be enrolled in postsecondary education after 

completing their first year of college; and

 (3) The extent to which the applicant met the administrative 

requirements, including recordkeeping, reporting, and financial 

accountability under the terms of the previously funded award.

[[Page 65771]]

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2(e))

PART 642--TRAINING PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL TRIO PROGRAMS

0
9. The authority citation for part 642 continues to read as follows:

 Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-17, unless otherwise 

noted.

Subpart A of Part 642 [Amended]

0

10. Section 642.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 642.1 What is the Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs?

 The Training Program for Federal TRIO programs, referred to in 

these regulations as the Training program, provides Federal financial 

assistance to train the leadership personnel and staff employed in, or 

preparing for employment in, Federal TRIO program projects.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-17)

0

11. Section 642.2 is amended by revising the section heading to read as 

follows:

Sec. 642.2 Who are eligible applicants?

* * * * *

0

12. Section 642.3 is amended by:

0

A. Revising the section heading.

0

B. In paragraph (a), adding the word ``funded'' after the word 

``projects''.

0

C. In paragraph (b) by removing the words ``staff or''; adding the 

words ``or staff'' after the word ``personnel''; and adding the word 

``funded'' after the word ``projects''.

 The revision reads as follows:

Sec. 642.3 Who are eligible participants?

* * * * *

Sec. Sec. 642.4 and 642.5 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec. 642.5 and 

642.6]

0

13. Sections 642.4 and 642.5 are redesignated as Sec. Sec. 642.5 and 

642.6.

0
14. A new Sec. 642.4 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 642.4 How long is a project period?

 A project period under the Training program is two years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11(b))

0

15. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.5 is amended by:

0

A. Revising the section heading.

0

B. Revising paragraph (a).

 The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 642.5 What regulations apply?

* * * * *

 (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations 

(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec. 75.215 through 

75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.

* * * * *

0

16. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.6 is amended by:

0

A. Revising the section heading.

0

B. In paragraph (b) by revising the introductory text; revising 

definitions of ``Federal TRIO programs'', ``Institution of higher 

education'', ``Leadership personnel''; adding, in alphabetical order, 

new definitions for ``Foster care youth'', ``Homeless children and 

youth'', ``Individual with a disability'', and ``Veteran''; and 

removing the authority citation following the definition of ``Federal 

TRIO programs''; and

0

C. Adding an authority citation at the end of the section.

 The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 642.6 What definitions apply?

* * * * *

 (b) Definitions that apply to this part.

* * * * *

 Federal TRIO programs means those programs authorized under section 

402A of the Act: the Upward Bound, Talent Search, Student Support 

Services, Educational Opportunity Centers, and Ronald E. McNair 

Postbaccalaureate Achievement programs.

 Foster care youth means youth who are in foster care or who are 

aging out of the foster care system.

 Homeless children and youth means persons defined in section 725 of 

the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a).
 Individual with a disability means a person who has a disability, 

as that term is defined in section 12102 of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).

* * * * *

 Institution of higher education means an educational institution as 

defined in sections 101 and 102 of the Act.

 Leadership personnel means project directors, coordinators, and 

other individuals involved with the supervision and direction of 

projects funded under the Federal TRIO programs.

 Veteran means a person who--

 (1) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 

United States for a period of more than 180 days and was discharged or 

released under conditions other than dishonorable;

 (2) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 

United States and was discharged or released because of a service 

connected disability;

 (3) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 

United States and was called to active duty for a period of more than 

30 days; or

 (4) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 

United States who served on active duty in support of a contingency 

operation (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, 

United States Code) on or after September 11, 2001.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., 1070a-11, 1070(b), 1088, and 

1141)

 17. Section 642.7 is added to subpart A of part 642 to read as 

follows:

Sec. 642.7 How many applications may an eligible applicant submit?

 An applicant may submit more than one application for Training 

grants as long as each application describes a project that addresses a 

different absolute priority from Sec. 642.24 that is designated in the 

Federal Register notice inviting applications.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

 18. Subpart B of part 642 is revised to read as follows:

Subpart B--What Types of Projects and Activities Does the Secretary 

Assist Under This Program?

 Sec.

 642.10 What types of projects does the Secretary assist?

 642.11 What activities does the Secretary assist?

 642.12 What activities may a project conduct?

Subpart B--What Types of Projects and Activities Does the Secretary 

Assist Under This Program?

Sec. 642.10 What types of projects does the Secretary assist?

 The Secretary assists projects that train the leadership personnel 
and staff of projects funded under the Federal TRIO Programs to enable 

them to operate those projects more effectively.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-17)

Sec. 642.11 What activities does the Secretary assist?

 (a) Each year, one or more Training Program projects must provide 

training for new project directors.

 (b) Each year, one or more Training Program projects must offer 

training covering the following topics:

 (1) The legislative and regulatory requirements for operating 

projects funded under the Federal TRIO programs.

 (2) Assisting students to receive adequate financial aid from 

programs assisted under title IV of the Act and from other programs.

[[Page 65772]]

 (3) The design and operation of model programs for projects funded 

under the Federal TRIO programs.

 (4) The use of appropriate educational technology in the operation 

of projects funded under the Federal TRIO programs.

 (5) Strategies for recruiting and serving hard-to-reach 

populations, including students who are limited English proficient, 

students from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in 

postsecondary education, students who are individuals with 

disabilities, students who are homeless children and youths, students 

who are foster care youth, or other disconnected students.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-17)

Sec. 642.12 What activities may a project conduct?

 A Training program project may include on-site training, on-line 

training, conferences, internships, seminars, workshops, and the 

publication of manuals designed to improve the operations of Federal 

TRIO program projects.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-17(b))

PART 642--[AMENDED]

0

19. Part 642 is amended by redesignating subparts D and E as subparts C 

and D, respectively.

Subpart C of Part 642 [Amended]

 Sec. Sec. 642.30, 642.31, 642.32, 642.33, and 642.34 [Redesignated 

as Sec. Sec. 642.20, 642.21, 642.22, 642.23, and 642.24]

0

20. Newly redesignated subpart C of part 642 is amended by 

redesignating Sec. Sec. 642.30, 642.31, 642.32, 642.33, and 642.34 as 

Sec. Sec. 642.20, 642.21, 642.22, 642.23, and 642.24, respectively.

0

21. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.20 is amended by:

0
A. Revising the section heading.

0

B. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), removing the citation 

``Sec. 642.31'' and adding, in its place, the citation ``Sec. 

642.21''.

0

C. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the number ``100'' and adding, in its 

place, the number ``75''.

0

D. Revising paragraph (b).

0

E. Adding new paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).

 The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec. 642.20 How does the Secretary evaluate an application for a new 

award?

* * * * *

 (b) In addition, for an applicant who is conducting a Training 

program in the fiscal year immediately prior to the fiscal year for 

which the applicant is applying, the Secretary evaluates the 

applicant's prior experience (PE) of high quality service delivery, as 

provided in Sec. 642.22, based on the applicant's performance during 

the first project year of that expiring Training program grant.

 (c) The Secretary selects applications for funding within each 

specific absolute priority established for the competition in rank 

order on the basis of the score received by the application in the peer 

review process.

 (d) Within each specific absolute priority, if there are 

insufficient funds to fund all applications at the next peer review 

score, the Secretary adds the PE points awarded under Sec. 642.22 to 

the peer review score to determine an adjusted total score for those 

applications. The Secretary makes awards at the next peer review score 

to the applications that have the highest total adjusted score.

 (e) In the event a tie score still exists, the Secretary will 

select for funding the applicant that has the greatest capacity to 

provide training to eligible participants in all regions of the Nation, 

consistent with Sec. 642.23.

* * * * *

0

22. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.21 is amended by:

0

A. Revising the section heading.

0

B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(v)(C).

0

C. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(C).

0

D. Removing paragraph (f).

0

E. Adding an OMB control number parenthetical after the last paragraph 

in the section.

 The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec. 642.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use?
* * * * *

 (a) * * *

 (2) * * *

 (v) * * *

 (C) Individuals with disabilities; and

* * * * *

 (b) * * *

 (2) * * *

 (iv) * * *

 (C) Individuals with disabilities; and

* * * * *

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840--NEW1)

* * * * *

0

23. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.22 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 642.22 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?

 (a) In the case of an application described in Sec. 642.20(b), the 

Secretary--

 (1) Evaluates the applicant's performance under its expiring 

Training program grant;

 (2) To determine the number of PE points to be awarded, uses the 

approved project objectives for the applicant's expiring Training 

program grant and the information the applicant submitted in its annual 

performance report (APR); and

 (3) May adjust a calculated PE score or decide not to award PE 

points if other information such as audit reports, site visit reports, 

and project evaluation reports indicate the APR data used to calculate 

PE are incorrect.

 (b)(1) The Secretary may add from 1 to 15 points to the point score 

obtained on the basis of the selection criteria in Sec. 642.21, based 

on the applicant's success in meeting the administrative requirements 

and programmatic objectives of paragraph (e) of this section.

 (2) The maximum possible score for each criterion is indicated in 

the parentheses preceding the criterion.

 (c) The Secretary awards no PE points for a given year to an 

applicant that does not serve at least 90 percent of the approved 

number of participants. For purposes of this section, the approved 

number of participants is the total number of participants the project 

would serve as agreed upon by the grantee and the Secretary.

 (d) For the criterion specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section 

(Number of participants), the Secretary awards no PE points if the 

applicant did not serve at least the approved number of participants.

 (e) The Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the basis of the 

following criteria:

 (1) (4 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant 

provided training to no less than the approved number of participants.

 (2) Training objectives. Whether the applicant met or exceeded its 

objectives for:

 (i) (4 points) Assisting the participants in developing increased 
qualifications and skills to meet the needs of disadvantaged students.

 (ii) (4 points) Providing the participants with an increased 

knowledge and understanding of the Federal TRIO programs.

 (3) (3 points) Administrative requirements. Whether the applicant 

met all the administrative requirements under the terms of the expiring 

grant, including recordkeeping, reporting, and financial 

accountability.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1894-0003)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

0

24. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.23 is amended by revising the section 

heading to read as follows:

[[Page 65773]]

Sec. 642.23 How does the Secretary ensure geographic distribution of 

awards?

* * * * *

0

25. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.24 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 642.24 What are the Secretary's priorities for funding?

 (a) The Secretary, after consultation with regional and State 

professional associations of persons having special knowledge with 

respect to the training of Special Programs personnel, may select one 

or more of the following subjects as training priorities:

 (1) Basic skills instruction in reading, mathematics, written and 

oral communication, and study skills.

 (2) Counseling.

 (3) Assessment of student needs.

 (4) Academic tests and testing.

 (5) College and university admissions policies and procedures.

 (6) Cultural enrichment programs.

 (7) Career planning.

 (8) Tutorial programs.

 (9) Retention and graduation strategies.

 (10) Strategies for preparing students for doctoral studies.

 (11) Project evaluation.

 (12) Budget management.

 (13) Personnel management.

 (14) Reporting student and project performance.

 (15) Coordinating project activities with other available resources 

and activities.

 (16) General project management for new directors.

 (17) Statutory and regulatory requirements for the operation of 

projects funded under the Federal TRIO programs.
 (18) Assisting students in receiving adequate financial aid from 

programs assisted under title IV of the Act and from other programs.

 (19) The design and operation of model programs for projects funded 

under the Federal TRIO programs.

 (20) The use of appropriate educational technology in the operation 

of projects funded under the Federal TRIO programs.

 (21) Strategies for recruiting and serving hard to reach 

populations, including students who are limited English proficient, 

students from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in 

postsecondary education, students who are individuals with 

disabilities, students who are homeless children and youths, students 

who are foster care youth, or other disconnected students.

 (b) The Secretary annually funds training on the subjects listed in 

paragraphs (a)(17), (a)(18), (a)(19), (a)(20), and (a)(21) of this 

section.

 (c) The Secretary designates one or more of the training priorities 

from paragraph (a) of this section in the Federal Register notice 

inviting applications for the competition.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-17)

0

26. Section 642.25 is added to subpart C of part 642 to read as 

follows:

Sec. 642.25 What is the review process for unsuccessful applicants?

 (a) Technical or administrative error for applications not 

reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated 

during the competition may request that the Secretary review the 

application if--

 (i) The applicant has met all of the application submission 

requirements included in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications and the other published application materials for the 

competition; and

 (ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 

Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or 

administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.

 (2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an 

application includes--

 (i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of 

applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures 

included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the 

competition;

 (ii) An error in determining an applicant's eligibility for funding 

consideration, which may include, but is not limited to--

 (A) An incorrect conclusion that the application was submitted by 

an ineligible applicant;

 (B) An incorrect conclusion that the application exceeded the 

published page limit;

 (C) An incorrect conclusion that the applicant requested funding 

greater than the published maximum award; or

 (D) An incorrect conclusion that the application was missing 

critical sections of the application; and
 (iii) Any other mishandling of the application that resulted in an 

otherwise eligible application not being reviewed during the 

competition.

 (3)(i) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 

Department's agent made a technical or administrative error, the 

Secretary has the application evaluated and scored.

 (ii) If the total score assigned the application would have 

resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the 

program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior 

to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of 

applications described in paragraph (c) of this section.

 (b) Administrative or scoring error for applications that were 

reviewed. (1) An applicant that was not selected for funding during a 

competition may request that the Secretary conduct a second review of 

the application if--

 (i) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 

Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made an 

administrative or scoring error in the review of its application; and

 (ii) The final score assigned to the application is within the 

funding band described in paragraph (d) of this section.

 (2) An administrative error relates to either the PE points or the 

scores assigned to the application by the peer reviewers.

 (i) For PE points, an administrative error includes mathematical 

errors made by the Department or the Department's agent in the 

calculation of the PE points or a failure to correctly add the earned 

PE points to the peer reviewer score.

 (ii) For the peer review score, an administrative error is applying 

the wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.

 (3)(i) A scoring error relates only to the peer review process and 

includes errors caused by a reviewer who, in assigning points--

 (A) Uses criteria not required by the applicable law or program 

regulations, the Federal Register notice inviting applications, the 

other published application materials for the competition, or guidance 

provided to the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or

 (B) Does not consider relevant information included in the 

appropriate section of the application.

 (ii) The term ``scoring error'' does not include--

 (A) A peer reviewer's appropriate use of his or her professional 

judgment in evaluating and scoring an application;

 (B) Any situation in which the applicant did not include 

information needed to evaluate its response to a specific selection 

criterion in the appropriate section of the application as stipulated 

in the Federal Register notice inviting applications or the other 

published application materials for the competition; or

 (C) Any error by the applicant.

 (c) Procedures for the second review. (1) To ensure the timely 

awarding of grants under the competition, the Secretary sets aside a 

percentage of the funds allotted for the competition to be

[[Page 65774]]

awarded after the second review is completed.

 (2) After the competition, the Secretary makes new awards in rank 

order as described in Sec. 642.20 based on the available funds for the 

competition minus the funds set aside for the second review.

 (3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to 

successful applicants, the Secretary notifies each unsuccessful 
applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the 

funding band for the second review and provides copies of the peer 

reviewers' evaluations of the applicant's application and the 

applicant's PE score, if applicable.

 (4) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the 

competition as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 

application received a score within the funding band as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second review if the 

applicant demonstrates that the Department, the Department's agent, or 

a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section.

 (5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first 

review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 

application received a score within the funding band as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section has at least 15 calendar days after 

receiving notification that its application was not funded in which to 

submit a written request for a second review in accordance with the 

instructions and due date provided in the Secretary's written 

notification.

 (6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be 

received by the Department or submitted electronically to a designated 

e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established by the 

Secretary.

 (7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 

Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE 

points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, 

the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct 

number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application 

would have resulted in funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds 

the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the 

second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of 

this section.

 (8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the 

Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error 

that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer 

reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score 

assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the 

application during the competition and the program has funds available, 

the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer review of applications described 

in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.

 (9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring 

error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary 

convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the 

requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.

 (10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer 

review are used in the second ranking of applications. The average 

score obtained from the second peer review panel is the final peer 

reviewer score for the application and will be used even if the second 

review results in a lower score for the application than that obtained 

in the initial review.

 (11) For applications in the funding band, the Secretary funds 

these applications in rank order based on adjusted scores and the 

available funds that have been set aside for the second review of 

applications.
 (d) Process for establishing a funding band. (1) For each 

competition, the Secretary establishes a funding band for the second 

review of applications.

 (2) The Secretary establishes the funding band for each competition 

based on the amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second 

review of applications.

 (3) The funding band is composed of those applications--

 (i) With a rank-order score before the second review that is below 

the lowest score of applications funded after the first review; and

 (ii) That would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the 

funds that were set aside for the second review of applications for the 

competition.

 (e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary's determination of whether 

the applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the 

Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application are final and not 

subject to further appeal or challenge.

 (2) An application that scored below the established funding band 

for the competition is not eligible for a second review.

 (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840-NEW1)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

0

27. A new Sec. 642.26 is added to subpart C of part 642 to read as 

follows:

Sec. 642.26 How does the Secretary set the amount of a grant?

 (a) The Secretary sets the amount of a grant on the basis of--

 (1) 34 CFR 75.232 and 75.233, for a new grant; and

 (2) 34 CFR 75.253, for the second year of a project period.

 (b) The Secretary uses the available funds to set the amount of the 

grant at the lesser of--

 (1) 170,000; or

 (2) The amount requested by the applicant.

Subpart D of Part 642 [Amended]

Sec. Sec. 642.40 and 642.41 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec. 642.30 and 

642.31]

0

28. Newly redesignated subpart D of part 642 is amended by 

redesignating Sec. Sec. 642.40 and 642.41 as Sec. Sec. 642.30 and 

642.31, respectively.

0

29. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.30 is amended by:

0

A. Revising the section heading.

0
B. In paragraph (d), removing the words ``if approved in writing by the 

Secretary''.

 The revision reads as follow:

Sec. 642.30 What are allowable costs?

* * * * *

0

30. Newly redesignated Sec. 642.31 is amended by revising the section 

heading to read as follows:

Sec. 642.31 What are unallowable costs?

* * * * *

PART 643--TALENT SEARCH

0

31. The authority citation for part 643 continues to read as follows:

 Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-12, unless otherwise 

noted.

0

32. Section 643.1 is amended by:

0

A. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``, and facilitate the 

application for,'' after the word ``of''.

0

B. Revising paragraph (c).

 The revision reads as follows:

Sec. 643.1 What is the Talent Search program?

* * * * *

 (c) Encourage persons who have not completed education programs at 

the secondary or postsecondary level to enter or reenter and complete 

these programs.

* * * * *

0

33. Section 643.2 is amended by:

[[Page 65775]]

0

A. In the introductory text, adding the word ``entities'' after the 

word ``following''.

0

B. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``, including a community-based 

organization with experience in serving disadvantaged youth'' after the 
word ``organization''.

0

C. Removing paragraph (d).

0

D. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d).

0

E. Adding a new paragraph (c).

0

F. In newly redesignated paragraph (d), removing the words ``paragraphs 

(a) and (b)'' and adding, in their place, the words ``paragraphs (a), 

(b), and (c)''.

 The addition reads as follows:

Sec. 643.2 Who is eligible for a grant?

* * * * *

 (c) A secondary school.

* * * * *

0

34. Section 643.3 is amended by:

0

A. In paragraph (a)(3)(i), removing the words ``, has potential for a 

program of postsecondary education, and needs one or more of the 

services provided by the project in order to undertake such a 

program''.

0

B. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), removing the words ``, has the ability to 

complete such a program, and needs one or more of the services provided 

by the project to reenter such a program''.

* * * * *

0

35. Section 643.4 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 643.4 What services does a project provide?

 (a) A Talent Search project must provide the following services:

 (1) Connections for participants to high quality academic tutoring 

services to enable the participants to complete secondary or 

postsecondary courses.

 (2) Advice and assistance in secondary school course selection and, 

if applicable, initial postsecondary course selection.

 (3) Assistance in preparing for college entrance examinations and 

completing college admission applications.

 (4)(i) Information on the full range of Federal student financial 

aid programs and benefits (including Federal Pell Grant awards and loan

forgiveness) and on resources for locating public and private 

scholarships; and

 (ii) Assistance in completing financial aid applications, including 

the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).

 (5) Guidance on and assistance in--

 (i) Secondary school reentry;

 (ii) Alternative education programs for secondary school dropouts 

that lead to the receipt of a regular secondary school diploma;
 (iii) Entry into general educational development (GED) programs; or

 (iv) Entry into postsecondary education.

 (6) Connections for participants to education or counseling 

services designed to improve the financial and economic literacy of the 

participants or the participants' parents, including financial planning 

for postsecondary education.

 (b) A Talent Search project may provide services such as the 

following:

 (1) Academic tutoring, which may include instruction in reading, 

writing, study skills, mathematics, science, and other subjects.

 (2) Personal and career counseling or activities.

 (3) Information and activities designed to acquaint youth with the 

range of career options available to the youth.

 (4) Exposure to the campuses of institutions of higher education, 

as well as to cultural events, academic programs, and other sites or 

activities not usually available to disadvantaged youth.

 (5) Workshops and counseling for families of participants served.

 (6) Mentoring programs involving elementary or secondary school 

teachers or counselors, faculty members at institutions of higher 

education, students, or any combination of these persons.

 (7) Programs and activities as described in this section that are 

specially designed for participants who are limited English proficient, 

from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary 

education, individuals with disabilities, homeless children and youths, 

foster care youth, or other disconnected participants.

 (8) Other activities designed to meet the purposes of the Talent 

Search Program in Sec. 643.1.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-12)

0

36. Section 643.5 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 643.5 How long is a project period?

 A project period under the Talent Search program is five years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

0

37. Section 643.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 

follows:

Sec. 643.6 What regulations apply?

* * * * *

 (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations 

(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec. 75.215 through 

75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.

* * * * *
0

38. Section 643.7(b) is amended by:

0

A. Revising the definition of ``Institution of higher education''.

0

B. Revising the definition of ``Veteran''.

0

C. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for ``Different 

population'', ``Financial and economic literacy'', ``Foster care 

youth'', ``Homeless children and youth'', ``Individual with a 

disability'', ``Regular secondary school diploma'', and ``Rigorous 

secondary school program of study''.

 The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 643.7 What definitions apply?

* * * * *

 (b) * * *

 Different population means a group of individuals that an eligible 

entity desires to serve through an application for a grant under the 

Talent Search program and that--

 (1) Is separate and distinct from any other population that the 

entity has applied for a grant to serve; or

 (2) While sharing some of the same needs as another population that 

the eligible entity has applied for a grant to serve, has distinct 

needs for specialized services.

 Financial and economic literacy means knowledge about personal 

financial decision-making, which may include but is not limited to 

knowledge about--

 (1) Personal and family budget planning;

 (2) Understanding credit building principles to meet long-term and 

short-term goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit scoring, negative 

impacts on credit scores);

 (3) Cost planning for postsecondary or postbaccalaureate education 

(e.g., spending, saving, personal budgeting);

 (4) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition 

vs. fees, personal costs);

 (5) Financial assistance (e.g., searches, application processes, 

and differences between private and government loans, assistanceships); 

and

 (6) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid (FAFSA).

 Foster care youth means youth who are in foster care or are aging 

out of the foster care system.

* * * * *

 Homeless children and youth means persons defined in section 725 of 

the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a).

[[Page 65776]]

 Individual with a disability means a person who has a disability, 

as that term is defined in section 12102 of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).

 Institution of higher education means an educational institution as 

defined in sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.
* * * * *

 Regular secondary school diploma means a level attained by 

individuals who meet or exceed the coursework and performance standards 

for high school completion established by the individual's State.

 Rigorous secondary school program of study means a program of study 

that is--

 (1) Established by a state educational agency (SEA) or local 

educational agency (LEA) and recognized as a rigorous secondary school 

program of study by the Secretary through the process described in 34 

CFR 691.16(a) through 691.16(c) for the Academic Competitiveness Grant 

(ACG) Program;

 (2) An advanced or honors secondary school program established by 

States and in existence for the 2004-2005 school year or later school 

years;

 (3) Any secondary school program in which a student successfully 

completes at a minimum the following courses:

 (i) Four years of English.

 (ii) Three years of mathematics, including algebra I and a higherlevel class such as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and 

statistics.

 (iii) Three years of science, including one year each of at least 

two of the following courses: Biology, chemistry, and physics.

 (iv) Three years of social studies.

 (v) One year of a language other than English;

 (4) A secondary school program identified by a State-level 

partnership that is recognized by the State Scholars Initiative of the 

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), Boulder, 

Colorado;

 (5) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at 

least two courses from an International Baccalaureate Diploma Program 

sponsored by the International Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva, 

Switzerland, and receives a score of a ``4'' or higher on the 

examinations for at least two of those courses; or

 (6) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at 

least two Advanced Placement courses and receives a score of ``3'' or 

higher on the College Board's Advanced Placement Program Exams for at 

least two of those courses.

* * * * *

 Veteran means a person who--

 (1) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 

United States for a period of more than 180 days and was discharged or 

released under conditions other than dishonorable;

 (2) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 

United States and was discharged or released because of a service 

connected disability;

 (3) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 

United States and was called to active duty for a period of more than 

30 days; or

 (4) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 

United States who served on active duty in support of a contingency 

operation (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, 

United States Code) on or after September 11, 2001.

* * * * *

Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?

0
39. Subpart B of part 643 is amended by revising the subpart heading to 

read as set forth above.

Sec. 643.10 [Redesignated as Sec. 643.11]

0

39a. Redesignate Sec. 643.10 as Sec. 643.11.

0

40. A new Sec. 643.10 is added to Subpart B to read as follows:

Sec. 643.10 How many applications may an eligible applicant submit?

 (a) An applicant may submit more than one application for Talent 

Search grants as long as each application describes a project that 

serves a different target area or target schools, or another designated 

different population.

 (b) For each grant competition, the Secretary designates, in the 

Federal Register notice inviting applications and the other published 

application materials for the competition, the different populations 

for which an eligible entity may submit a separate application.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-12; 1221e-3)

0

41. Newly redesignated Sec. 643.11 is amended by:

0

A. In the introductory text, removing the word ``shall'' and adding, in 

its place, the word ``must''.

0

B. Revising paragraph (b).

 The revision reads as follows:

Sec. 643.11 What assurances must an applicant submit?

* * * * *

 (b) The project will collaborate with other Federal TRIO projects, 

GEAR UP projects, or programs serving similar populations that are 

serving the same target schools or target area in order to minimize the 

duplication of services and promote collaborations so that more 

students can be served.

* * * * *

0

42. Section 643.20 is amended by:

0

A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the word ``or'' after the words 

``same populations'' and adding, in its place, the word ``and''; 

removing the words ``in delivering services'' and adding, in their 

place, the words ``of high quality service delivery; and adding the 

word ``outcome'' before the word ``criteria''.

0

B. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding the word ``total'' after the word 
``maximum'' the first time it appears.

0

C. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).

0

D. Removing paragraph (a)(3).

0

E. In paragraph (b), removing the words ``through (3)'' and adding, in 

their place, the words ``and (a)(2)''.

0

F. Revising paragraph (d).

 The additions and revision read as follows:

Sec. 643.20 How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make?

 (a) * * *

 (2) * * *

 (iii) The Secretary evaluates the PE of an applicant for each of 

the three project years that the Secretary designates in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications and the other published 

application materials for the competition.

 (iv) An applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the 

designated project years for which annual performance report data are 

available.

 (v) The final PE score is the average of the scores for the three 

project years assessed.

* * * * *

 (d) The Secretary does not make a new grant to an applicant if the 

applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.

* * * * *

0

43. Section 643.21 is amended by:

0

A. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).

0

B. Revising paragraph (d)(2).

0

C. In the OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (g), 

removing the numbers ``1840-0549'' and adding, in their place, the 

numbers ``1840-0065''.

 The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 643.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use?

* * * * *

 (a) Need for the project (24 points). The Secretary evaluates the 

need for a Talent Search project in the proposed target area on the 

basis of the extent to

[[Page 65777]]

which the application contains clear evidence of the following:

 (1) (4 points) A high number or high percentage of the following--

 (i) Low-income families residing in the target area; or

 (ii) Students attending the target schools who are eligible for 
free or reduced priced lunch as described in sections 9(b)(1) and 

17(c)(4) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.

 (2) (2 points) Low rates of high school persistence among 

individuals in the target schools as evidenced by the annual student 

persistence rates in the proposed target schools for the most recent 

year for which data are available.

 (3) (4 points) Low rates of students in the target school or 

schools who graduate high school with a regular secondary school 

diploma in the standard number of years for the most recent year for 

which data are available.

 (4) (6 points) Low postsecondary enrollment and completion rates 

among individuals in the target area and schools as evidenced by--

 (i) Low rates of enrollment in programs of postsecondary education 

by graduates of the target schools in the most recent year for which 

data are available; and

 (ii) A high number or high percentage of individuals residing in 

the target area with education completion levels below the 

baccalaureate degree level.

 (5) (2 points) The extent to which the target secondary schools do 

not offer their students the courses or academic support to complete a 

rigorous secondary school program of study or have low participation or 

low success by low-income or first generation students in such courses.

 (6) (6 points) Other indicators of need for a TS project, including 

low academic achievement and low standardized test scores of students 

enrolled in the target schools, a high ratio of students to school 

counselors in the target schools, and the presence of unaddressed 

academic or socio-economic problems of eligible individuals, including 

foster care youth and homeless children and youth in the target schools 

or the target area.

 (b) Objectives (8 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of 

the applicant's objectives and proposed targets (percentages) in the 

following areas on the basis of the extent to which they are both 

ambitious, as related to the need data provided under paragraph (a) of 

this section, and attainable, given the project's plan of operation, 

budget, and other resources:

 (1) (2 points) Secondary school persistence.

 (2) (2 points) Secondary school graduation (regular secondary 

school diploma).

 (3) (1 point) Secondary school graduation (rigorous secondary 

school program of study).

 (4) (2 points) Postsecondary education enrollment.

 (5) (1 point) Postsecondary degree attainment.

 (c) Plan of operation (30 points). The Secretary evaluates the 

quality of the applicant's plan of operation on the basis of the 

following:

 (1) (3 points) The plan to inform the residents, schools, and 

community organizations in the target area of the purpose, objectives, 

and services of the project and the eligibility requirements for 

participation in the project.

 (2) (3 points) The plan to identify and select eligible project 

participants.

 (3) (10 points) The plan for providing the services delineated in 

Sec. 643.4 as appropriate based on the project's assessment of each 

participant's need for services.

 (4) (6 points) The plan to work in a coordinated, collaborative, 

and cost-effective manner as part of an overarching college access 

strategy with the target schools or school system and other programs 
for disadvantaged students to provide participants with access to and 

assistance in completing a rigorous secondary school program of study.

 (5) (6 points) The plan, including timelines, personnel, and other 

resources, to ensure the proper and efficient administration of the 

project, including the project's organizational structure; the time 

commitment of key project staff; and financial, personnel, and records 

management.

 (6) (2 points) The plan to follow former participants as they 

enter, continue in, and complete postsecondary education.

 (d) * * *

 (2) (8 points) Resources secured through written commitments from 

community partners.

 (i) An applicant that is an institution of higher education must 

include in its application commitments from the target schools and 

community organizations;

 (ii) An applicant that is a secondary school must include in its 

commitments from institutions of higher education, community 

organizations, and, as appropriate, other secondary schools and the 

school district; and

 (iii) An applicant that is a community organization must include in 

its application commitments from the target schools and institutions of 

higher education.

* * * * *

0

44. Section 643.22 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 643.22 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?

 (a) In the case of an application described in Sec. 

643.20(a)(2)(i), the Secretary--

 (1) Evaluates the applicant's performance under its expiring Talent 

Search project;

 (2) Uses the approved project objectives for the applicant's 

expiring Talent Search grant and the information the applicant 

submitted in its annual performance reports (APRs) to determine the 

number of PE points; and

 (3) May adjust a calculated PE score or decide not to award PE 

points if other information such as audit reports, site visit reports, 

and project evaluation reports indicates the APR data used to calculate 

PE are incorrect.

 (b) The Secretary does not award PE points for a given year to an 

applicant that does not serve at least 90 percent of the approved 

number of participants. For purposes of this section, the approved 

number of participants is the total number of participants the project 

would serve as agreed upon by the grantee and the Secretary.

 (c) The Secretary does not award any PE points for the criterion 

specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section (Number of participants) 

if the applicant did not serve at least the approved number of 

participants.

 (d) For purposes of the evaluation of grants awarded after January 

1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the basis of the 

following outcome criteria:

 (1) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant 

provided services to no less than the approved number of participants.

 (2) (3 points) Secondary school persistence. Whether the applicant 
met or exceeded its objective regarding the continued secondary school 

enrollment of participants.

 (3) (3 points) Secondary school graduation (regular secondary 

school diploma). Whether the applicant met or exceeded its objective 

regarding the graduation of participants served during the project year 

from secondary school with a regular secondary school diploma in the 

standard number of years.

 (4) (1.5 points) Secondary school graduation (rigorous secondary 

school program of study). Whether the applicant met or exceeded its 

objective regarding the graduation of participants

[[Page 65778]]

served during the project year who completed a rigorous secondary 

school program of study.

 (5) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its objective regarding the participants expected to 

graduate from high school in the school year who enrolled in an 

institution of higher education within the time period specified in the 

approved objective.

 (6) (1.5 points) Postsecondary completion. Whether the applicant 

met or exceeded its objective regarding project participants who 

enrolled in and completed a program of postsecondary education within 

the number of years specified in the approved objective. The applicant 

may determine success in meeting the objective by using a randomly 

selected sample of participants in accordance with the parameters 

established by the Secretary in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications or other published application materials for the 

competition.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840--NEW7)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-12)

Sec. 643.23 [Amended]

0

45. Section 643.23 is amended by:

0

A. In the introductory text of paragraph (b), removing the words 

``beginning in fiscal year 1994''.

0

B. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the amount ``$180,000'' and adding, in 

its place, the amount ``$200,000''.

0

46. A new Sec. 643.24 is added to subpart C of part 643 to read as 

follows:

Sec. 643.24 What is the review process for unsuccessful applicants?

 (a) Technical or administrative error for applications not 
reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated 

during the competition may request that the Secretary review the 

application if--

 (i) The applicant has met all application submission requirements 

included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and the 

other published application materials for the competition; and

 (ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 

Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or 

administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.

 (2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an 

application includes--

 (i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of 

applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures 

included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the 

competition;

 (ii) An error in determining an applicant's eligibility for funding 

consideration, which may include, but is not limited to--

 (A) An incorrect conclusion that the application was submitted by 

an ineligible applicant;

 (B) An incorrect conclusion that the application exceeded the 

published page limit;

 (C) An incorrect conclusion that the applicant requested funding 

greater than the published maximum award; or

 (D) An incorrect conclusion that the application was missing 

critical sections of the application; and

 (iii) Any other mishandling of the application that resulted in an 

otherwise eligible application not being reviewed during the 

competition.

 (3)(i) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 

Department's agent made a technical or administrative error, the 

Secretary has the application evaluated and scored.

 (ii) If the total score assigned the application would have 

resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the 

program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior 

to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of 

applications described in paragraph (c) of this section.

 (b) Administrative or scoring error for applications that were 

reviewed. (1) An applicant that was not selected for funding during a 

competition may request that the Secretary conduct a second review of 

the application if--

 (i) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 

Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made an 

administrative or scoring error in the review of its application; and

 (ii) The final score assigned to the application is within the 

funding band described in paragraph (d) of this section.

 (2) An administrative error relates to either the PE points or the 

scores assigned to the application by the peer reviewers.

 (i) For PE points, an administrative error includes mathematical 

errors made by the Department or the Department's agent in the 

calculation of the PE points or a failure to correctly add the earned 

PE points to the peer reviewer score.

 (ii) For the peer review score, an administrative error is applying 

the wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.

 (3)(i) A scoring error relates only to the peer review process and 

includes errors caused by a reviewer who, in assigning points--

 (A) Uses criteria not required by the applicable law or program 
regulations, the Federal Register notice inviting applications, the 

other published application materials for the competition, or guidance 

provided to the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or

 (B) Does not consider relevant information included in the 

appropriate section of the application.

 (ii) The term ``scoring error'' does not include--

 (A) A peer reviewer's appropriate use of his or her professional 

judgment in evaluating and scoring an application;

 (B) Any situation in which the applicant did not include 

information needed to evaluate its response to a specific selection 

criterion in the appropriate section of the application as stipulated 

in the Federal Register notice inviting applications or the other 

published application materials for the competition; or

 (C) Any error by the applicant.

 (c) Procedures for the second review. (1) To ensure the timely 

awarding of grants under the competition, the Secretary sets aside a 

percentage of the funds allotted for the competition to be awarded 

after the second review is completed.

 (2) After the competition, the Secretary makes new awards in rank 

order as described in Sec. 643.20 based on the available funds for the 

competition minus the funds set aside for the second review.

 (3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to 

successful applicants, the Secretary notifies each unsuccessful 

applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the 

funding band for the second review and provides copies of the peer 

reviewers' evaluations of the applicant's application and the 

applicant's PE score, if applicable.

 (4) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the 

competition as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 

application received a score within the funding band as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second review if the 

applicant demonstrates that the Department, the Department's agent, or 

a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section.

 (5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first 

review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 

application received a score within the funding band as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section has at least 15 calendar days

[[Page 65779]]

after receiving notification that its application was not funded in 

which to submit a written request for a second review in accordance 

with the instructions and due date provided in the Secretary's written 

notification.

 (6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be 

received by the Department or submitted electronically to the 

designated e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established 

by the Secretary.

 (7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 

Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE 

points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, 

the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct 

number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application 

would have resulted in funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds 

the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the 
second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of 

this section.

 (8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the 

Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error 

that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer 

reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score 

assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the 

application during the competition and the program has funds available, 

the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer review of applications described 

in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.

 (9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring 

error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary 

convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the 

requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.

 (10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer 

review are used in the second ranking of applications. The average 

score obtained from the second peer review panel is the final peer 

reviewer score for the application and will be used even if the second 

review results in a lower score for the application than that obtained 

in the initial review.

 (11) For applications in the funding band, the Secretary funds 

these applications in rank order based on adjusted scores and the 

available funds that have been set aside for the second review of 

applications.

 (d) Process for establishing a funding band. (1) For each 

competition, the Secretary establishes a funding band for the second 

review of applications.

 (2) The Secretary establishes the funding band for each competition 

based on the amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second 

review of applications.

 (3) The funding band is composed of those applications--

 (i) With a rank-order score before the second review that is below 

the lowest score of applications funded after the first review; and

 (ii) That would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the 

funds that were set aside for the second review of applications for the 

competition.

 (e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary's determination of whether 

the applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the 

Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application are final and not 

subject to further appeal or challenge.

 (2) An application that scored below the established funding band 

for the competition is not eligible for a second review.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840-NEW2)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

0

47. Section 643.30 is amended by:

0

A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``34 CFR part 74, 
subpart Q'' and adding, in their place, the words ``34 CFR 74.27, 

75.530, and 80.22, as applicable''.

0

B. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), adding the word 

``project'' before the word ``staff''.

0

C. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the words ``to obtain information 

relating to the admission of participants to those institutions''.

0

D. In paragraph (a)(2), removing the word ``and''.

0

E. In paragraph (a)(3), adding the words ``for participants'' after the 

word ``trips''; removing the words ``in the target area''; and removing 

the punctuation ``.'' at the end of the paragraph and adding, in its 

place, the words ``; and''.

0

F. Adding a new paragraph (a)(4).

0

G. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``and test preparation programs 

for participants'' after the word ``materials''.

0

H. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.

0

I. Revising paragraph (f).

0

J. Adding new paragraphs (g) and (h).

 The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 643.30 What are allowable costs?

* * * * *

 (a) * * *

 (4) Transportation to institutions of higher education, secondary 

schools not attended by the participants, or other locations at which 

the participant receives instruction that is part of a rigorous 

secondary school program of study.

* * * * *

 (c) Fees required for admission applications for postsecondary 

education, college entrance examinations, or alternative education 

examinations if--

* * * * *

 (f) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware, software, and 

other equipment, service agreements for such equipment, and supplies 

that support the delivery of services to participants, including 

technology used by participants in a rigorous secondary school program 

of study.

 (g) Purchase, lease, service agreement, or rental of computer 

equipment and software needed for project administration and 

recordkeeping.

 (h) Tuition costs for a course that is part of a rigorous secondary 

school program of study if--

 (1) The course or a similar course is not offered at the secondary 

school that the participant attends or at another school within the 

school district;

 (2) The grantee demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction that 

using grant funds is the most cost-effective way to deliver the course 
or courses necessary for the completion of a rigorous secondary school 

program of study for program participants;

 (3) The course is taken through an accredited institution of higher 

education;

 (4) The course is comparable in content and rigor to courses that 

are part of a rigorous secondary school program of study as defined in 

Sec. 643.7(b);

 (5) The secondary school accepts the course as meeting one or more 

of the course requirements for obtaining a regular secondary school 

diploma;

 (6) A waiver of the tuition costs is unavailable;

 (7) The tuition is paid with Talent Search grant funds to an 

institution of higher education on behalf of a participant; and

 (8) The Talent Search project pays for no more than the equivalent 

of two courses for a participant each school year.

0

48. Section 643.31 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing the phrase 

``Tuition, stipends,'' and by adding, in its place, the word 

``Stipends''.

0

49. Section 643.32 is amended by:

[[Page 65780]]

0

A. Revising paragraph (b).

0

B. In paragraph (c) introductory text, removing the word ``shall'' and 

adding, in its place, the word ``must''.

0

C. In paragraph (c)(3), removing the word ``and''.

0

D. In paragraph (c)(4), removing the punctuation ``.'' and adding, in 

its place, the words ``; and''.

0

E. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).

0

F. Revising paragraph (d).

0

G. In the OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (d), 

removing the numbers ``1840-0549'' and adding, in their place, the 

numbers ``1840-NEW2''.

 The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 643.32 What other requirements must a grantee meet?

* * * * *

 (b) Number of Participants. For each year of the project period, a 

grantee must serve at least the number of participants that the 

Secretary identifies in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for a competition. Through this notice, the Secretary also 

provides the minimum and maximum grant award amounts for the 

competition.
* * * * *

 (c) * * *

 (5) To the extent practicable, any services the TS participant 

receives during the project year from another Federal TRIO program or 

another federally funded program that serves populations similar to 

those served under the TS program.

 (d) Project director. (1) A grantee must employ a full-time project 

director unless--

 (i) The director is also administering one or two additional 

programs for disadvantaged students operated by the sponsoring 

institution or agency; or

 (ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of this requirement.

 (2) The grantee must give the project director sufficient authority 

to administer the project effectively.

 (3) The Secretary waives the requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section if the applicant demonstrates that the project director 

will be able to effectively administer more than three programs and 

that this arrangement would promote effective coordination between the 

TS program and other Federal TRIO Programs (sections 402B through 402F 

of the HEA) or similar programs funded through other sources.

* * * * *

PART 644--EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY CENTERS

0

50. The authority citation for part 644 continues to read as follows:

 Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-16, unless otherwise 

noted.

0

51. Section 644.1 is amended by:

0

A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``to provide''.

0

B. In paragraph (a), removing the word ``Information'' and adding, in 

its place, the words ``To provide information''; removing the word 

``for'' and adding, in its place, the word ``to''; and removing the 

word ``and'' that appears after the punctuation ``;''.

0

C. In paragraph (b), removing the word ``Assistance'' and adding, in 

its place, the words ``To provide assistance''; and removing the 

punctuation ``.'' at the end of the sentence and adding, in its place, 

the word ``; and''.

0

D. Adding a new paragraph (c).

 The addition reads as follows:

Sec. 644.1 What is the Educational Opportunity Centers program?

* * * * *

 (c) To improve the financial and economic literacy of participants 

on topics such as--

 (1) Basic personal income, household money management, and 

financial planning skills; and
 (2) Basic economic decision-making skills.

* * * * *

0

52. Section 644.2 is amended by:

0

A. In the introductory text of the section, adding the word 

``entities'' after the word ``following''.

0

B. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``, including a community-based 

organization with experience in serving disadvantaged youth'' after the 

word ``organization''.

0

C. Removing paragraph (d).

0

D. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d).

0

E. Adding a new paragraph (c).

0

F. In newly redesignated paragraph (d), removing the word ``and'' 

before the citation ``(b)'' and adding, in its place, the punctuation 

``,''; and adding the words ``, and (c)'' after the citation ``(b)''.

 The addition reads as follows:

Sec. 644.2 Who is eligible for a grant?

* * * * *

 (c) A secondary school.

* * * * *

0

53. Section 644.4 is amended by:

0

A. Redesignating paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) as 

paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l), respectively.

0

B. Adding a new paragraph (e).

0

C. In newly redesignated paragraph (g), removing the word ``Personal'' 

and adding, in its place, the words ``Individualized personal, career, 

and academic''.

0

D. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (k).

 The addition and revision read as follows:

Sec. 644.4 What services may a project provide?

* * * * *

 (e) Education or counseling services designed to improve the 

financial and economic literacy of participants.

* * * * *

 (k) Programs and activities described in this section that are 

specially designed for participants who are limited English proficient, 

participants from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in 
postsecondary education, participants who are individuals with 

disabilities, participants who are homeless children and youth, 

participants who are foster care youth, or other disconnected 

participants.

* * * * *

0

54. Section 644.5 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 644.5 How long is a project period?

 A project period under the Educational Opportunity Centers program 

is five years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

0

55. Section 644.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 

follows:

Sec. 644.6 What regulations apply?

* * * * *

 (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations 

(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec. 75.215 through 

75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.

* * * * *

0

56. Section 644.7(b) is amended by:

0

A. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for ``Different 

population'', ``Financial and economic literacy'', ``Foster care 

youth'', ``Homeless children and youth'', and ``Individual with a 

disability''.

0

B. Revising the definition of ``Institution of higher education''.

0

C. Revising the definition of ``Veteran''.

 The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec. 644.7 What definitions apply?

* * * * *

 (b) * * *

 Different population means a group of individuals that an eligible 

entity desires to serve through an application for a grant under the 

Educational Opportunity Centers program and that--

 (i) Is separate and distinct from any other population that the 

entity has

[[Page 65781]]
applied for a grant under this chapter to serve; or

 (ii) While sharing some of the same needs as another population 

that the eligible entity has applied for a grant to serve, has distinct 

needs for specialized services.

 Financial and economic literacy means knowledge about personal 

financial decision-making, which may include but is not limited to 

knowledge about--

 (i) Personal and family budget planning;

 (ii) Understanding credit building principles to meet long-term and 

short-term goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit scoring, negative 

impacts on credit scores);

 (iii) Cost planning for postsecondary or postbaccalaureate 

education (e.g., spending, saving, personal budgeting);

 (iv) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition 

vs. fees, personal costs);

 (v) Financial assistance (e.g., searches, application processes, 

and differences between private and government loans, assistanceships); 

and

 (vi) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid (FAFSA).

 Foster care youth means youth who are in foster care or are aging 

out of the foster care system.

* * * * *

 Homeless children and youth means those persons defined in section 

725 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a).

 Individual with a disability means a person who has a disability, 

as that term is defined in section 12102 of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).

 Institution of higher education means an educational institution as 

defined in sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.

* * * * *

 Veteran means a person who--

 (i) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 

United States for a period of more than 180 days and was discharged or 

released under conditions other than dishonorable;

 (ii) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 

United States and was discharged or released because of a service 

connected disability;

 (iii) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of 

the United States and was called to active duty for a period of more 

than 30 days; or

 (iv) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 

United States who served on active duty in support of a contingency 

operation (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, 

United States Code) on or after September 11, 2001.

* * * * *

Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?

0

57. The heading for subpart B of part 644 is revised to read as set 

forth above.

Sec. 644.10 [Redesignated as Sec. 644.11]
0

58. In subpart B of part 644, Sec. 644.10 is redesignated as Sec. 

644.11.

0

59. A new Sec. 644.10 is added to subpart B of part 644 to read as 

follows:

Sec. 644.10 How many applications may an eligible applicant submit?

 (a) An applicant may submit more than one application for 

Educational Opportunity Centers grants as long as each application 

describes a project that serves a different target area or another 

designated different population.

 (b) For each grant competition, the Secretary designates, in the 

Federal Register notice inviting applications and other published 

application materials for the competition, the different populations 

for which an eligible entity may submit a separate application.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11, 1221e-3)

0

60. Newly redesignated Sec. 644.11 is amended by:

0

A. In the introductory text, removing the word ``shall'' and adding, in 

its place, the word ``must''.

0

B. Revising paragraph (b).

 The revision reads as follows:

Sec. 644.11 What assurances must an applicant submit?

* * * * *

 (b) The project will collaborate with other Federal TRIO projects, 

GEAR UP projects, or programs serving similar populations that are 

serving the same target schools or target area in order to minimize the 

duplication of services and promote collaborations so that more 

students can be served.

* * * * *

0

61. Section 644.20 is amended by:

0

A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the word ``or'' after the words 

``same populations'' and adding, in its place, the word ``and''; 

removing the words ``in delivering services'' and adding, in their 

place, the words ``of high quality service delivery; and adding the 

word ``outcome'' before the word ``criteria''.

0

B. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding the word ``total'' after the word 

``maximum'' the first time it appears.

0

C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).

0
D. Removing paragraph (a)(3).

0

E. In paragraph (b), removing the words ``paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(3)'' and adding, in their place, the words ``paragraph (a)''.

0

F. Revising paragraph (d).

 The revision and additions read as follows:

Sec. 644.20 How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make?

 (a) * * *

 (2) * * *

 (iii) The Secretary evaluates the PE of an applicant for each of 

the three project years that the Secretary designates in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications and the other published 

application materials for the competition.

 (iv) An applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the 

designated project years for which annual performance report data are 

available.

 (v) The final PE score is the average of the scores for the three 

project years assessed.

* * * * *

 (d) The Secretary does not make a new grant to an applicant if the 

applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.

* * * * *

0

62. Section 644.21 is amended by:

0

A. Revising paragraph (b).

0

B. In the OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (g), 

removing the numbers ``1840-0065'' and adding, in their place, the 

numbers ``1840-NEW3''.

 The revision reads as follows:

Sec. 644.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use?

* * * * *

 (b) Objectives (8 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of 

the applicant's objectives and proposed targets (percentages) in the 

following areas on the basis of the extent to which they are both 

ambitious, as related to the need data provided under paragraph (a) of 

this section, and attainable, given the project's plan of operation, 

budget, and other resources:

 (1) (2 points) Secondary school diploma or equivalent.

 (2) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment.

 (3) (1.5 points) Financial aid applications.

 (4) (1.5 points) College admission applications.

* * * * *

0

63. Section 644.22 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 65782]]
Sec. 644.22 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?

 (a) In the case of an application described in Sec. 

644.20(a)(2)(i), the Secretary--

 (1) Evaluates the applicant's performance under its expiring 

Educational Opportunity Centers project;

 (2) Uses the approved project objectives for the applicant's 

expiring Educational Opportunity Centers grant and the information the 

applicant submitted in its annual performance reports (APRs) to 

determine the number of PE points; and

 (3) May adjust a calculated PE score or decide not to award PE 

points if other information such as audit reports, site visit reports, 

and project evaluation reports indicates the APR data used to calculate 

PE points are incorrect.

 (b) The Secretary does not award PE points for a given year to an 

applicant that does not serve at least 90 percent of the approved 

number of participants. For purposes of this section, the approved 

number of participants is the total number of participants the project 

would serve as agreed upon by the grantee and the Secretary.

 (c) The Secretary does not award PE points for the criterion 

specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section (Number of participants) 

if the applicant did not serve at least the approved number of 

participants.

 (d) For purposes of the PE evaluation of grants awarded after 

January 1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the 

basis of the following outcome criteria:

 (1) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant 

provided services to no less than the approved number of participants.

 (2) (3 points) Secondary school diploma. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its approved objective with regard to participants served 

during the project year who do not have a secondary school diploma or 

its equivalent who receive a secondary school diploma or its equivalent 

within the time period specified in the approved objective.

 (3) (5 points) Postsecondary enrollment. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the secondary school 

graduates served during the project year who enroll in programs of 

postsecondary education within the time period specified in the 

approved objective.

 (4) (2 points) Financial aid applications. Whether the applicant 

met or exceeded its objective regarding participants applying for 

financial aid.

 (5) (2 points) College admission applications. Whether the 

applicant met or exceeded its objective regarding participants applying 

for college admission.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840-NEW8)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-16)

0

64. Section 644.23 is amended by:

0

A. In the introductory text of paragraph (b), removing the words 

``beginning in fiscal year 1994''.
0

B. Revising paragraph (b)(1).

 The revision reads as follows:

Sec. 644.23 How does the Secretary set the amount of a grant?

* * * * *

 (b) * * *

 (1) $200,000; or

* * * * *

0

65. Section 644.24 is added to subpart C of part 644 to read as 

follows:

Sec. 644.24 What is the review process for unsuccessful applicants?

 (a) Technical or administrative error for applications not 

reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated 

during the competition may request that the Secretary review the 

application if--

 (i) The applicant has met all of the application submission 

requirements included in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications and the other published application materials for the 

competition; and

 (ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 

Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or 

administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.

 (2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an 

application includes--

 (i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of 

applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures 

included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the 

competition;

 (ii) An error in determining an applicant's eligibility for funding 

consideration, which may include, but is not limited to--

 (A) An incorrect conclusion that the application was submitted by 

an ineligible applicant;

 (B) An incorrect conclusion that the application exceeded the 

published page limit;

 (C) An incorrect conclusion that the applicant requested funding 

greater than the published maximum award; or

 (D) An incorrect conclusion that the application was missing 

critical sections of the application; and

 (iii) Any other mishandling of the application that resulted in an 

otherwise eligible application not being reviewed during the 

competition.

 (3)(i) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 

Department's agent made a technical or administrative error, the 

Secretary has the application evaluated and scored.

 (ii) If the total score assigned the application would have 

resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the 

program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior 

to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of 

applications described in paragraph (c) of this section.
 (b) Administrative or scoring error for applications that were 

reviewed. (1) An applicant that was not selected for funding during a 

competition may request that the Secretary conduct a second review of 

the application if--

 (i) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 

Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made an 

administrative or scoring error in the review of its application; and

 (ii) The final score assigned to the application is within the 

funding band described in paragraph (d) of this section.

 (2) An administrative error relates to either the PE points or the 

scores assigned to the application by the peer reviewers.

 (i) For PE points, an administrative error includes mathematical 

errors made by the Department or the Department's agent in the 

calculation of the PE points or a failure to correctly add the earned 

PE points to the peer reviewer score.

 (ii) For the peer review score, an administrative error is applying 

the wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.

 (3)(i) A scoring error relates only to the peer review process and 

includes errors caused by a reviewer who, in assigning points--

 (A) Uses criteria not required by the applicable law or program 

regulations, the Federal Register notice inviting applications, the 

other published application materials for the competition, or guidance 

provided to the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or

 (B) Does not consider relevant information included in the 

appropriate section of the application.

 (ii) The term ``scoring error'' does not include--

 (A) A peer reviewer's appropriate use of his or her professional 

judgment in evaluating and scoring an application;

 (B) Any situation in which the applicant did not include 

information

[[Page 65783]]

needed to evaluate its response to a specific selection criterion in 

the appropriate section of the application as stipulated in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications or the other published 

application materials for the competition; or

 (C) Any error by the applicant.

 (c) Procedures for the second review. (1) To ensure the timely 

awarding of grants under the competition, the Secretary sets aside a 

percentage of the funds allotted for the competition to be awarded 

after the second review is completed.

 (2) After the competition, the Secretary makes new awards in rank 

order as described in Sec. 644.20 based on the available funds for the 

competition minus the funds set aside for the second review.

 (3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to 

successful applicants, the Secretary notifies each unsuccessful 

applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the 

funding band for the second review and provides copies of the peer 

reviewers' evaluations of the applicant's application and the 

applicant's PE score, if applicable.

 (4) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the 

competition as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 

application received a score within the funding band as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second review if the 

applicant demonstrates that the Department, the Department's agent, or 

a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error as provided in 
paragraph (b) of this section.

 (5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first 

review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 

application received a score within the funding band as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section has at least 15 calendar days after 

receiving notification that its application was not funded in which to 

submit a written request for a second review in accordance with the 

instructions and due date provided in the Secretary's written 

notification.

 (6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be 

received by the Department or submitted electronically to the 

designated e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established 

by the Secretary.

 (7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 

Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE 

points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, 

the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct 

number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application 

would have resulted in funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds 

the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the 

second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of 

this section.

 (8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the 

Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error 

that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer 

reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score 

assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the 

application during the competition and the program has funds available, 

the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer review of applications described 

in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.

 (9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring 

error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary 

convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the 

requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.

 (10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer 

review are used in the second ranking of applications. The average 

score obtained from the second peer review panel is the final peer 

reviewer score for the application and will be used even if the second 

review results in a lower score for the application than that obtained 

in the initial review.

 (11) For applications in the funding band, the Secretary funds 

these applications in rank order based on adjusted scores and the 

available funds that have been set aside for the second review of 

applications.

 (d) Process for establishing a funding band. (1) For each 

competition, the Secretary establishes a funding band for the second 

review of applications.

 (2) The Secretary establishes the funding band for each competition 

based on the amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second 

review of applications.

 (3) The funding band is composed of those applications--

 (i) With a rank-order score before the second review that is below 

the lowest score of applications funded after the first review; and

 (ii) That would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the 
funds that were set aside for the second review of applications for the 

competition.

 (e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary's determination of whether 

the applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the 

Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application are final and not 

subject to further appeal or challenge.

 (2) An application that scored below the established funding band 

for the competition is not eligible for a second review.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840--NEW3)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

0

66. Section 644.30 is amended by:

0

A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``34 CFR part 74, 

subpart Q'' and adding, in their place, the words ``34 CFR 74.27, 

75.530, and 80.22, as applicable''.

0

B. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), adding the word 

``project'' before the word ``staff''.

0

C. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the words ``to obtain information 

relating to the admission of participants to those institutions''.

0

D. Revising paragraph (a)(3).

0

E. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``and test preparation programs 

for participants'' after the word ``materials''.

0

F. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.

0

G. Revising paragraph (f).

 The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 644.30 What are allowable costs?

* * * * *

 (a) * * *

 (3) Field trips for participants to observe and meet with persons 

who are employed in various career fields and can act as role models 

for participants.

* * * * *

 (c) Fees required for admission applications for postsecondary 

education, college entrance examinations, or alternative education 

examinations if--

* * * * *

 (f) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware, software, and 

other equipment, service agreements for such equipment, and supplies 

for participant development, project administration, or project 

recordkeeping.

* * * * *
0

67. Section 644.32 is amended by:

0

A. Revising paragraph (b).

0

B. In paragraph (c) introductory text, removing the word ``shall'' and 

adding, in its place, the word ``must''.

0

C. In paragraph (c)(2), removing the word ``and''.

0

D. In paragraph (c)(3), removing the punctuation ``.'' and adding, in 

its place, the words ``; and''.

[[Page 65784]]

0

E. Adding a new paragraph (c)(4).

0

F. Revising paragraph (d).

0

G. In the OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (d), 

removing the numbers ``1840-0065'' and adding, in their place, the 

numbers ``1840--NEW8''.

 The revisions and addition reads as follows:

Sec. 644.32 What other requirements must a grantee meet?

* * * * *

 (b) Number of Participants. For each year of the project period, a 

grantee must serve at least the number of participants that the

Secretary identifies in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for a competition. Through this notice, the Secretary also 

provides the minimum and maximum grant award amounts for the 

competition.

 (c) * * *

 (4) To the extent practicable, any services the participant 

receives during the project year from another Federal TRIO program or 

another federally funded program that serves populations similar to 

those served under the EOC program.

 (d) Project director. (1) A grantee must employ a full-time project 

director unless--

 (i) The director is also administering one or two additional 

programs for disadvantaged students operated by the sponsoring 

institution or agency; or

 (ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of this requirement.

 (2) The grantee must give the project director sufficient authority 

to administer the project effectively.

 (3) The Secretary waives the requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section if the applicant demonstrates that that the project 

director will be able to effectively administer more than three 

programs and that this arrangement would promote effective coordination 

between the program and other Federal TRIO programs (sections 402B

through 402F of the HEA) and similar programs funded through other 

sources.

* * * * *
PART 645--UPWARD BOUND PROGRAM

0

68. The authority citation for part 645 continues to read as follows:

 Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-13, unless otherwise 

noted.

0

69. Section 645.2 is amended by:

0

A. In paragraph (a), removing the word ``Institutions'' and adding, in 

its place, the words ``An institution''.

0

B. Revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d).

 The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 645.2 Who is eligible for a grant?

* * * * *

 (b) A public or private agency or organization, including a 

community-based organization with experience in serving disadvantaged 

youth.

 (c) A secondary school.

 (d) A combination of the types of institutions, agencies, and 

organizations described in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this 

section.

* * * * *

0

70. Section 645.3 is amended by:

0

A. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the word ``or'' after the punctuation 

``;'';

0

B. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the punctuation ``.'' and adding, in 

its place, the word ``; or'';

0

C. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3).

0

D. In paragraph (d), removing the words ``but has not entered the 

twelfth grade''.

 The addition reads as follows:

Sec. 645.3 Who is eligible to participate in an Upward Bound project?

* * * * *

 (b) * * *

 (3) An individual who has a high risk for academic failure.

* * * * *

0

71. Section 645.4 is amended by:

0
A. Revising the section heading.

0

B. Removing paragraph (a).

0

C. Redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) as paragraphs (a), (b), 

and (c), respectively.

 The revision reads as follows:

Sec. 645.4 What are the grantee requirements for documenting the lowincome and first-generation status of participants?

* * * * *

0

72. Section 645.5 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 

follows:

Sec. 645.5 What regulations apply?

* * * * *

 (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations 

(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec. 75.215 through 

75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.

* * * * *

0

73. Section 645.6(b) is amended by:

0

A. Revising the definition of ``Institution of higher education''.

0

B. Revising the definition of ``Veteran''.

0

C. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for ``Different 

population'', ``Financial and economic literacy'', ``Foster care 

youth'', ``Homeless children and youth'', ``Individual who has a high 

risk for academic failure'', ``Individual with a disability'', 

``Regular secondary school diploma'', ``Rigorous secondary school 

program of study'', and ``Veteran who has a high risk for academic 

failure''.

 The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 645.6 What definitions apply to the Upward Bound Program?

* * * * *

 (b) * * *

 Different population means a group of individuals that an eligible 

entity desires to serve through an application for a grant under the 

Upward Bound program and that--

 (1) Is separate and distinct from any other population that the 

entity has applied for a grant to serve; or

 (2) While sharing some of the same needs as another population that 

the eligible entity has applied for a grant to serve, has distinct 

needs for specialized services.

* * * * *
 Financial and economic literacy means knowledge about personal 

financial decision-making, which may include but is not limited to 

knowledge about--

 (1) Personal and family budget planning;

 (2) Understanding credit building principles to meet long-term and 

short-term goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit scoring, negative 

impacts on credit scores);

 (3) Cost planning for postsecondary or postbaccalaureate education 

(e.g., spending, saving, personal budgeting);

 (4) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition 

vs. fees, personal costs);

 (5) Financial assistance (e.g., searches, application processes, 

and differences between private and government loans, assistanceships); 

and

 (6) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid (FAFSA).

 Foster care youth means youth who are in foster care or are aging 

out of the foster care system.

 Homeless children and youth means persons defined in section 725 of 

the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a).

* * * * *

 Individual who has a high risk for academic failure (regular Upward 

Bound participant) means an individual who--

 (1) Has not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments 

in reading or language arts;

 (2) Has not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments 

in math;

 (3) Has not successfully completed pre-algebra or algebra by the 

beginning of the tenth grade; or

[[Page 65785]]

 (4) Has a grade point average of 2.5 or less (on a 4.0 scale) for 

the most recent school year for which grade point averages are 

available.

 Individual with a disability means a person who has a disability, 

as that term is defined in section 12102 of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).

 Institution of higher education means an educational institution as 

defined in sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.

* * * * *

 Regular secondary school diploma means a diploma attained by 

individuals who meet or exceed the coursework and performance standards 

for high school completion established by the individual's State.

 Rigorous secondary school program of study means a program of study 

that is--

 (1) Established by a State educational agency (SEA) or local 

educational agency (LEA) and recognized as a rigorous secondary school 

program of study by the Secretary through the process described in 34 

CFR 691.16(a) through (c) for the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) 

Program;

 (2) An advanced or honors secondary school program established by 

States and in existence for the 2004-2005 school year or later school 

years;

 (3) Any secondary school program in which a student successfully 

completes at a minimum the following courses:

 (i) Four years of English.
 (ii) Three years of mathematics, including algebra I and a higherlevel class such as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and 

statistics.

 (iii) Three years of science, including one year each of at least

two of the following courses: biology, chemistry, and physics.

 (iv) Three years of social studies.

 (v) One year of a language other than English;

 (4) A secondary school program identified by a State-level 

partnership that is recognized by the State Scholars Initiative of the 

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), Boulder, 

Colorado;

 (5) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at 

least two courses from an International Baccalaureate Diploma Program 

sponsored by the International Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva, 

Switzerland, and receives a score of a ``4'' or higher on the 

examinations for at least two of those courses; or

 (6) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at 

least two Advanced Placement courses and receives a score of ``3'' or 

higher on the College Board's Advanced Placement Program Exams for at 

least two of those courses.

* * * * *

 Veteran means a person who--

 (1) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 

United States for a period of more than 180 days and was discharged or 

released under conditions other than dishonorable;

 (2) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 

United States and was discharged or released because of a service 

connected disability;

 (3) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 

United States and was called to active duty for a period of more than 

30 days; or

 (4) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 

United States who served on active duty in support of a contingency 

operation (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, 

United States Code) on or after September 11, 2001.

 Veteran who has a high risk for academic failure means a veteran 

who--

 (1) Has been out of high school or dropped out of a program of 

postsecondary education for five or more years;

 (2) Has scored on standardized tests below the level that 

demonstrates a likelihood of success in a program of postsecondary 

education; or

 (3) Meets the definition of an individual with a disability as 

defined in Sec. 645.6(b).

* * * * *

0

74. Section 645.11 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 645.11 What services do all Upward Bound projects provide?

 (a) Any project assisted under this part must provide--

 (1) Academic tutoring to enable students to complete secondary or 

postsecondary courses, which may include instruction in reading, 

writing, study skills, mathematics, science, and other subjects;

 (2) Advice and assistance in secondary and postsecondary course 
selection;

 (3) Assistance in preparing for college entrance examinations and 

completing college admission applications;

 (4)(i) Information on the full range of Federal student financial 

aid programs and benefits (including Federal Pell Grant awards and loan 

forgiveness) and resources for locating public and private 

scholarships; and

 (ii) Assistance in completing financial aid applications, including

the Free Application for Federal Student Aid;

 (5) Guidance on and assistance in--

 (i) Secondary school reentry;

 (ii) Alternative education programs for secondary school dropouts 

that lead to the receipt of a regular secondary school diploma;

 (iii) Entry into general educational development (GED) programs; or

 (iv) Entry into postsecondary education; and

 (6) Education or counseling services designed to improve the 

financial and economic literacy of students or the students' parents, 

including financial planning for postsecondary education.

 (b) Any project that has received funds under this part for at 

least two years must include as part of its core curriculum in the next 

and succeeding years, instruction in--

 (1) Mathematics through pre-calculus;

 (2) Laboratory science;

 (3) Foreign language;

 (4) Composition; and

 (5) Literature.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13)

Sec. Sec. 645.12, 645.13, and 645.14 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec. 

645.13, 645.14, and 645.15]

0

75. Sections 645.12, 645.13, and 645.14 of subpart B of part 645 are 

redesignated as Sec. Sec. 645.13, 645.14, and 645.15 of subpart B of 

part 645, respectively.

0

76. A new Sec. 645.12 is added to subpart B of part 645 to read as 

follows:

Sec. 645.12 What services may regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound 

Math-Science projects provide?

 Any project assisted under this part may provide such services as--

 (a) Exposure to cultural events, academic programs, and other 

activities not usually available to disadvantaged youth;

 (b) Information, activities, and instruction designed to acquaint 

youth participating in the project with the range of career options 

available to the youth;

 (c) On-campus residential programs;

 (d) Mentoring programs involving elementary school or secondary 

school teachers or counselors, faculty members at institutions of 

higher education, students, or any combination of these persons;

 (e) Work-study positions where youth participating in the project 

are exposed to careers requiring a postsecondary degree;

 (f) Programs and activities as described in Sec. 645.11 that are 
specially designed for participants who are limited English proficient, 

participants from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in 

postsecondary

[[Page 65786]]

education, participants who are individuals with disabilities, 

participants who are homeless children and youths, participants in or 

who are aging out of foster care, or other disconnected participants; 

and

 (g) Other activities designed to meet the purposes of the Upward 

Bound program in Sec. 645.1.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13)

0

77. Newly redesignated Sec. 645.15 is amended by--

0

A. Revising the section heading.

0

B. In the introductory text, removing the words ``Sec. 645.11(a) and 

may be provided under Sec. 645.11(b)'' and adding, in their place, the 

citation ``Sec. 645.11''.

0

C. In paragraph (b), removing the word ``and''.

0

D. In paragraph (c), removing the punctuation ``.'' and adding, in its 

place, the word ``; and''.

0

E. Adding a new paragraph (d).

 The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec. 645.15 What additional services may Veterans Upward Bound 

projects provide?

* * * * *

 (d) Provide special services, including mathematics and science 

preparation, to enable veterans to make the transition to postsecondary 

education.

* * * * *

0

78. Section 645.20 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 645.20 How many applications for an Upward Bound award may an 

eligible applicant submit?

 (a) An applicant may submit more than one application as long as 

each application describes a project that serves a different target 

area or target school, or another designated different population.

 (b) For each grant competition, the Secretary designates, in the 

Federal Register notice inviting applications and other published 

application materials for the competition, the different populations 

for which an eligible entity may submit a separate application.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13, 1221e-3)

0

79. Section 645.21 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 645.21 What assurances must an applicant include in an 

application?

 (a) An applicant for a Regular Upward Bound award must assure the 

Secretary that--

 (1) Not less than two-thirds of the project's participants will be 

low-income individuals who are potential first-generation college 

students;

 (2) The remaining participants will be low-income individuals, 

potential first-generation college students, or individuals who have a 

high risk for academic failure;

 (3) No student will be denied participation in a project because 

the student would enter the project after the 9th grade; and

 (4) The project will collaborate with other Federal TRIO projects, 

GEAR UP projects, or programs serving similar populations that are 

serving the same target schools or target area in order to minimize the 

duplication of services and promote collaborations so that more 

students can be served.

 (b) An applicant for an Upward Bound Math and Science Centers award 

must assure the Secretary that--

 (1) Not less than two-thirds of the project's participants will be 

low-income individuals who are potential first-generation college 

students;

 (2) The remaining participants will be either low-income 

individuals or potential first-generation college students;

 (3) No student will be denied participation in a project because 

the student would enter the project after the 9th grade; and

 (4) The project will collaborate with other Federal TRIO projects, 

GEAR UP projects, or programs serving similar populations that are 

serving the same target schools or target area in order to minimize the 

duplication of services and promote collaborations so that more 

students can be served.

 (c) An applicant for a Veterans Upward Bound award must assure the 

Secretary that--

 (1) Not less than two-thirds of the project's participants will be 

low-income individuals who are potential first-generation college 

students;

 (2) The remaining participants will be low-income individuals, 

potential first-generation college students, or veterans who have a 

high risk for academic failure; and

 (3) The project will collaborate with other Federal TRIO projects 

or programs serving similar populations in the target area in order to 

minimize the duplication of services and promote collaborations so that 

more students can be served.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13)
0

80. Section 645.30 is amended by:

0

A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the word ``or'' after the words 

``same target population'' and adding, in its place, the word ``and''; 

removing the words ``in delivering services'' and adding, in their 

place, the words ``of high quality service delivery''; and adding the 

word ``outcome'' before the word ``criteria''.

0

B. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding the word ``total'' after the word 

``maximum'' the first time it appears.

0

C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).

0

D. Revising paragraph (d).

 The additions and revision read as follows:

Sec. 645.30 How does the Secretary decide which grants to make?

 (a) * * *

 (2) * * *

 (iii) The Secretary evaluates the PE of an applicant for each of 

the three project years that the Secretary designates in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications and the other published 

application materials for the competition.

 (iv) An applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the 

designated project years for which annual performance report data are 

available.

 (v) The final PE score is the average of the scores for the three 

project years assessed.

* * * * *

 (d) The Secretary does not make a new grant to an applicant if the 

applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.

* * * * *

0

81. Section 645.31 is amended by:

0

A. Revising paragraph (b).

0

B. Revising paragraph (d)(2).

 The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 645.31 What selection criteria does the Secretary use?

* * * * *

 (b) Objectives (9 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of 

the applicant's objectives and proposed targets (percentages) in the 

following areas on the basis of the extent to which they are both 

ambitious, as related to the need data provided under paragraph (a) of 

this section, and attainable, given the project's plan of operation, 

budget, and other resources:

 (1) For Regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science 

Centers--
 (i) (1 point) Academic performance (GPA);

 (ii) (1 point) Academic performance (standardized test scores);

 (iii) (2 points) Secondary school retention and graduation (with 

regular secondary school diploma);

 (iv) (1 point) Completion of rigorous secondary school program of 

study;

 (v) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment; and

 (vi) (1 point) Postsecondary completion.

 (2) For Veterans Upward Bound--

 (i) (2 points) Academic performance (standardized test scores);

[[Page 65787]]

 (ii) (3 points) Education program retention and completion;

 (iii) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment; and

 (iv) (1 point) Postsecondary completion.

* * * * *

 (d) * * *

 (2) Resources secured through written commitments from community 

partners.

 (i) An applicant that is an institution of higher education must 

include in its application commitments from the target schools and 

community organizations;

 (ii) An applicant that is a secondary school must include in its 

commitments from institutions of higher education, community 

organizations, and, as appropriate, other secondary schools and the 

school district;

 (iii) An applicant that is a community organization must include in 

its application commitments from the target schools and institutions of 

higher education.

* * * * *

0

82. Section 645.32 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 645.32 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?

 (a) In the case of an application described in Sec. 

645.30(a)(2)(i), the Secretary--

 (1) Evaluates the applicant's performance under its expiring Upward 

Bound project;

 (2) Uses the approved project objectives for the applicant's 

expiring Upward Bound grant and the information the applicant submitted 

in its annual performance reports (APRs) to determine the number of PE 

points; and

 (3) May adjust a calculated PE score or decide not to award any PE 

points if other information such as audit reports, site visit reports, 

and project evaluation reports indicates the APR data used to calculate 

PE points are incorrect.

 (b) The Secretary does not award PE points for a given year to an 

applicant that does not serve at least 90 percent of the approved 

number of participants. For purposes of this section, the approved 

number of participants is the total number of participants the project 

would serve as agreed upon by the grantee and the Secretary.

 (c) The Secretary does not award PE points for the criteria 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(2)(i) of this section (Number 
of participants) if the applicant did not serve at least the approved 

number of participants.

 (d) The Secretary uses the approved number of participants, or the 

actual number of participants served in a given year if greater than 

the approved number of participants, as the denominator for calculating 

whether the applicant has met its approved objectives related to the 

following PE criteria:

 (1) Regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science Centers 

PE criteria in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section (Academic 

performance) and paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section (Secondary 

school retention and graduation).

 (2) Veterans Upward Bound PE criteria in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of 

this section (Education program retention and completion).

 (e) For purposes of the PE evaluation of grants awarded after 

January 1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the 

basis of the following outcome criteria:

 (1) Regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science Centers.

 (i) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant 

provided services to no less than the approved number of participants.

 (ii) Academic Performance. (A) (1.5 points) Whether the applicant 

met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to participants 

served during the project year who had a cumulative GPA at the end of 

the school year that was not less than the GPA specified in the 

approved objective.

 (B) (1.5 points) Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved 

objective with regard to participants served during the project period 

who met the academic performance levels on standardized tests as 

specified in the approved objectives.

 (iii) (3 points) Secondary school retention and graduation. Whether 

the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to 

participants served during the project year who returned the next 

school year or graduated from secondary school with a regular secondary 

school diploma.

 (iv) (1.5 points) Rigorous secondary school program of study. 

Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to current and prior participants with an expected high school 

graduation date in the school year who completed a rigorous secondary 

school program of study.

 (v) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its approved objective with regard current and prior 

participants with an expected high school graduation date in the school 

year who enrolled in a program of postsecondary education within the 

time period specified in the approved objective.

 (vi) (1.5 points) Postsecondary completion. Whether the applicant 

met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to participants who 

enrolled in a program of postsecondary education and attained a 

postsecondary degree within the number of years specified in the 

approved objective.

 (2) Veterans Upward Bound.

 (i) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant 

provided services to no less than the approved number of participants.

 (ii) (3 points) Academic improvement on standardized test. Whether 

the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to 

participants who completed their Veterans Upward Bound educational 

program during the project year and who improved their academic 

performance as measured by a standardized test taken by participants 

before and after receiving services from the project.
 (iii) (3 points) Education program retention and completion. 

Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to participants served during the project year who remained in 

or completed their Veterans Upward Bound educational program.

 (iv) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its approved objective with regard to participants who 

completed their Veterans Upward Bound educational program and enrolled 

in an institution of higher education within the time period specified 

in the approved objective.

 (v) (3 points) Postsecondary completion. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its approved objective with regard to participants who 

enrolled in and completed a program of postsecondary education within 

the number of years specified in the approved objective.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840-NEW9)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-13)

Sec. 645.33 [Amended]

0

83. Section 645.33 is amended by, in paragraph (b)(1), removing the 

amount ``$190,000'' and adding, in its place, the amount ``$200,000''.

0

84. Section 645.34 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 645.34 How long is a project period?

 A project period under the Upward Bound program is five years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

[[Page 65788]]

0

85. A new Sec. 645.35 is added to subpart D of part 645 to read as 

follows:

Sec. 645.35 What is the review process for unsuccessful applicants?

 (a) Technical or administrative error for applications not 

reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated 

during the competition may request that the Secretary review the 

application if--

 (i) The applicant has met all of the application submission 

requirements included in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications and the other published application materials for the 

competition; and

 (ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 

Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or 
administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.

 (2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an 

application includes--

 (i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of 

applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures 

included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the 

competition;

 (ii) An error in determining an applicant's eligibility for funding 

consideration, which may include, but is not limited to--

 (A) An incorrect conclusion that the application was submitted by 

an ineligible applicant;

 (B) An incorrect conclusion that the application exceeded the 

published page limit;

 (C) An incorrect conclusion that the applicant requested funding 

greater than the published maximum award; or

 (D) An incorrect conclusion that the application was missing 

critical sections of the application; and

 (iii) Any other mishandling of the application that resulted in an 

otherwise eligible application not being reviewed during the 

competition.

 (3)(i) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 

Department's agent made a technical or administrative error, the 

Secretary has the application evaluated and scored.

 (ii) If the total score assigned the application would have 

resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the 

program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior 

to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of 

applications described in paragraph (c) of this section.

 (b) Administrative or scoring error for applications that were 

reviewed. (1) An applicant that was not selected for funding during a 

competition may request that the Secretary conduct a second review of 

the application if--

 (i) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 

Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made an 

administrative or scoring error in the review of its application; and

 (ii) The final score assigned to the application is within the 

funding band described in paragraph (d) of this section.

 (2) An administrative error relates to either the PE points or the 

scores assigned to the application by the peer reviewers.

 (i) For PE points, an administrative error includes mathematical 

errors made by the Department or the Department's agent in the 

calculation of the PE points or a failure to correctly add the earned 

PE points to the peer reviewer score.

 (ii) For the peer review score, an administrative error is applying 

the wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.

 (3)(i) A scoring error relates only to the peer review process and 

includes errors caused by a reviewer who, in assigning points--

 (A) Uses criteria not required by the applicable law or program 

regulations, the Federal Register notice inviting applications, the 

other published application materials for the competition, or guidance 

provided to the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or

 (B) Does not consider relevant information included in the 

appropriate section of the application.

 (ii) The term ``scoring error'' does not include--

 (A) A peer reviewer's appropriate use of his or her professional 

judgment in evaluating and scoring an application;

 (B) Any situation in which the applicant did not include 
information needed to evaluate its response to a specific selection 

criterion in the appropriate section of the application as stipulated 

in the Federal Register notice inviting applications or the other 

published application materials for the competition; or

 (C) Any error by the applicant.

 (c) Procedures for the second review. (1) To ensure the timely 

awarding of grants under the competition, the Secretary sets aside a 

percentage of the funds allotted for the competition to be awarded 

after the second review is completed.

 (2) After the competition, the Secretary makes new awards in rank 

order as described in Sec. 645.30 based on the available funds for the 

competition minus the funds set aside for the second review.

 (3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to 

successful applicants, the Secretary notifies each unsuccessful 

applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the 

funding band for the second review and provides copies of the peer 

reviewers' evaluations of the applicant's application and the 

applicant's PE score, if applicable.

 (4) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the 

competition as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 

application received a score within the funding band as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second review if the 

applicant demonstrates that the Department, the Department's agent, or 

a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section.

 (5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first 

review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 

application received a score within the funding band as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section has at least 15 calendar days after 

receiving notification that its application was not funded in which to 

submit a written request for a second review in accordance with the 

instructions and due date provided in the Secretary's written 

notification.

 (6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be 

received by the Department or submitted electronically to the 

designated e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established 

by the Secretary.

 (7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 

Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE 

points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, 

the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct 

number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application 

would have resulted in funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds 

the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the 

second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of 

this section.

 (8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the 

Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error 

that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer 

reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score 

assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the 

application during the competition and the program has funds

[[Page 65789]]
available, the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking 

of applications based on the second peer review of applications 

described in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.

 (9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring 

error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary 

convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the 

requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.

 (10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer 

review are used in the second ranking of applications. The average 

score obtained from the second peer review panel is the final peer 

reviewer score for the application and will be used even if the second 

review results in a lower score for the application than that obtained 

in the initial review.

 (11) For applications in the funding band, the Secretary funds 

these applications in rank order based on adjusted scores and the 

available funds that have been set aside for the second review of 

applications.

 (d) Process for establishing a funding band. (1) For each 

competition, the Secretary establishes a funding band for the second 

review of applications.

 (2) The Secretary establishes the funding band for each competition 

based on the amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second 

review of applications.

 (3) The funding band is composed of those applications--

 (i) With a rank-order score before the second review that is below 

the lowest score of applications funded after the first review; and

 (ii) That would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the 

funds that were set aside for the second review of applications for the 

competition.

 (e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary's determination of whether 

the applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the 

Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application are final and not 

subject to further appeal or challenge.

 (2) An application that scored below the established funding band 

for the competition is not eligible for a second review.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840-NEW4)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

0

86. Section 645.40 is amended by:

0

A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``34 CFR part 74, 

subpart Q'' and adding, in their place, the words ``34 CFR 74.27, 

75.530, and 80.22, as applicable''.

0

B. Revising paragraph (n).

0

C. Redesignating paragraph (o) as paragraph (p).

0

D. Adding new paragraph (o).

0

E. Adding new paragraph (q).

 The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 645.40 What are allowable costs?

* * * * *

 (n) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware, software, and 

other equipment, service agreements for such equipment, and supplies 

that support the delivery of services to participants, including 

technology used by participants in a rigorous secondary school program 

of study.

 (o) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer equipment and software, 

service agreements for such equipment, and supplies needed for project 

administration and recordkeeping.

* * * * *

 (q) Tuition costs for a course that is part of a rigorous secondary 

school program of study if--

 (1) The course or a similar course is not offered at the secondary 

school that the participant attends or at another school within the 

school district;

 (2) The grantee demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction that 

using grant funds is the most cost-effective way to deliver the course 

or courses necessary for the completion of a rigorous secondary school 

program of study for program participants;

 (3) The course is taken through an accredited institution of higher 

education;

 (4) The course is comparable in content and rigor to courses that 

are part of a rigorous secondary school program of study as defined in 

Sec. 645.6(b);

 (5) The secondary school accepts the course as meeting one or more 

of the course requirements for obtaining a regular secondary school 

diploma;

 (6) A waiver of the tuition costs is unavailable;

 (7) The tuition is paid with Upward Bound grant funds to an 

institution of higher education on behalf of a participant; and

 (8) The Upward Bound project pays for no more than the equivalent 

of two courses for a participant each school year.

* * * * *

0

87. Section 645.42 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read 

as follows:

Sec. 645.42 What are Upward Bound stipends?

* * * * *

 (d) * * *

 (1) * * *

 (ii) The stipend may not exceed $60 per month for the summer school 

recess for a period not to exceed three months, except that youth 

participating in a work-study position may be paid $300 per month 

during the summer school recess.

* * * * *

0

88. Section 645.43 is amended by:

0
A. Revising paragraph (a).

0

B. Revising paragraph (b).

0

C. In paragraph (c) introductory text, removing the word ``shall'' and 

adding, in its place, the word ``must''.

0

D. In paragraph (c)(4), removing the punctuation ``.'' and adding, in 

its place, the words ``; and''.

0

E. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).

0

F. Adding an OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (c).

 The additions read as follows:

Sec. 645.43 What other requirements must a grantee meet?

 (a) Number of Participants. For each year of the project period, a 

grantee must serve at least the number of participants that the 

Secretary identifies in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for a competition. Through this notice, the Secretary also 

provides the minimum and maximum grant award amounts for the 

competition.

 (b) Project director. (1) A grantee must employ a full-time project 

director unless--

 (i) The director is also administering one or two additional 

programs for disadvantaged students operated by the sponsoring 

institution or agency; or

 (ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of this requirement.

 (2) The grantee must give the project director sufficient authority 

to administer the project effectively.

 (3) The Secretary waives the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section if the applicant demonstrates that the project director 

will be able to effectively administer more than three programs and 

that this arrangement would promote effective coordination between the 

program and other Federal TRIO programs (sections 402B through 402F of 

the HEA) and similar programs funded through other sources.

 (c) * * *

 (5) To the extent practicable, any services the participant 

receives during the project year from another Federal TRIO program or 

another federally funded program that serves populations similar to 

those served under the UB program.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840-NEW9)

* * * * *

[[Page 65790]]

PART 646--STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES

0

89. The authority citation for part 646 continues to read as follows:

 Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14, unless otherwise 

noted.
0

90. Section 646.1 is amended by:

0

A. In paragraph (a), adding the word ``college'' before the word 

``retention''.

0

B. Revising paragraph (c).

0

C. Adding new paragraph (d).

 The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec. 646.1 What is the Student Support Services program?

* * * * *

 (c) Foster an institutional climate supportive of the success of 

students who are limited English proficient, students from groups that 

are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education, 

individuals with disabilities, homeless children and youth, foster care 

youth, or other disconnected students; and

 (d) Improve the financial and economic literacy of students in 

areas such as--

 (1) Basic personal income, household money management, and 

financial planning skills; and

 (2) Basic economic decision-making skills.

* * * * *

0

91. Section 646.4 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 646.4 What activities and services does a project provide?

 (a) A Student Support Services project must provide the following 

services:

 (1) Academic tutoring, directly or through other services provided 

by the institution, to enable students to complete postsecondary 

courses, which may include instruction in reading, writing, study 

skills, mathematics, science, and other subjects.

 (2) Advice and assistance in postsecondary course selection.

 (3)(i) Information on both the full range of Federal student 

financial aid programs and benefits (including Federal Pell Grant 

awards and loan forgiveness) and resources for locating public and 

private scholarships; and

 (ii) Assistance in completing financial aid applications, including 

the Free Application for Federal Student Aid.

 (4) Education or counseling services designed to improve the 

financial and economic literacy of students, including financial 

planning for postsecondary education.

 (5) Activities designed to assist participants enrolled in fouryear institutions of higher education in applying for admission to, and 

obtaining financial assistance for enrollment in, graduate and 

professional programs.

 (6) Activities designed to assist students enrolled in two-year 

institutions of higher education in applying for admission to, and 
obtaining financial assistance for enrollment in, a four-year program 

of postsecondary education.

 (b) A Student Support Services project may provide the following 

services:

 (1) Individualized counseling for personal, career, and academic 

matters provided by assigned counselors.

 (2) Information, activities, and instruction designed to acquaint 

students participating in the project with the range of career options 

available to the students.

 (3) Exposure to cultural events and academic programs not usually 

available to disadvantaged students.

 (4) Mentoring programs involving faculty or upper class students, 

or a combination thereof.

 (5) Securing temporary housing during breaks in the academic year 

for--

 (i) Students who are homeless children and youths or were formerly 

homeless children and youths; and

 (ii) Foster care youths.

 (6) Programs and activities as described in paragraph (a) of this 

section or paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section that are 

specially designed for students who are limited English proficient, 

students from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in 

postsecondary education, students who are individuals with 

disabilities, students who are homeless children and youths, students 

who are foster care youth, or other disconnected students.

 (7) Other activities designed to meet the purposes of the Student 

Support Services Program in Sec. 646.1.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)

0

92. Section 646.5 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 646.5 How long is a project period?

 A project period under the Student Support Services program is five 

years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

0

93. Section 646.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 

follows:

Sec. 646.6 What regulations apply?

* * * * *

 (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations 

(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec. 75.215 through 

75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.

* * * * *
0

94. Section 646.7 is amended by:

0

A. Removing paragraph (a).

0

B. Redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (a) and (b), 

respectively.

0

C. In newly redesignated paragraph (b), revising the definition of 

``Different campus''; removing the definition of ``Different population 

of participants''; revising the definition of ``Individual with a 

disability''; and adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for 

``Different population'', ``Financial and economic literacy'', ``First 

generation college student'', ``Foster care youth'', ``Homeless 

children and youth'', ``Institution of higher education'', and ``Lowincome individual''.

 The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 646.7 What definitions apply?

* * * * *

 (b) * * *

 Different campus means a site of an institution of higher education 

that--

 (1) Is geographically apart from the main campus of the 

institution;

 (2) Is permanent in nature; and

 (3) Offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree, 

certificate, or other recognized educational credential.

 Different population means a group of individuals that an eligible 

entity desires to serve through an application for a grant under the 

Student Support Services program and that--

 (1) Is separate and distinct from any other population that the 

entity has applied for a grant to serve; or

 (2) While sharing some of the same needs as another population that 

the eligible entity has applied for a grant to serve, has distinct 

needs for specialized services.

 Financial and economic literacy means knowledge about personal 

financial decision-making, which may include but is not limited to 

knowledge about--

 (1) Personal and family budget planning;

 (2) Understanding credit building principles to meet long-term and 

short-term goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit scoring, negative

impacts on credit scores);

 (3) Cost planning for postsecondary or postbaccalaureate education 

(e.g., spending, saving, personal budgeting);

 (4) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition 

vs. fees, personal costs);

 (5) Financial assistance (e.g., searches, application processes, 

differences between private and government loans, assistanceships); and

[[Page 65791]]

 (6) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid (FAFSA).
 First generation college student means--

 (1) A student neither of whose natural or adoptive parents received 

a baccalaureate degree;

 (2) A student who, prior to the age of 18, regularly resided with 

and received support from only one parent and whose supporting parent 

did not receive a baccalaureate degree; or

 (3) An individual who, prior to the age of 18, did not regularly 

reside with or receive support from a natural or an adoptive parent.

 Foster care youth means youth who are in foster care or are aging 

out of the foster care system.

 Homeless children and youth means persons defined in section 725 of 

the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 1143a).

 Individual with a disability means a person who has a disability, 

as that term is defined in section 12102 of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).

 Institution of higher education means an educational institution as 

defined in sections 101 and 102 of the Act.

* * * * *

 Low-income individual means an individual whose family's taxable 

income did not exceed 150 percent of the poverty level amount in the 

calendar year preceding the year in which the individual initially 

participated in the project. The poverty level amount is determined by 

using criteria of poverty established by the Bureau of the Census of 

the U.S. Department of Commerce.

* * * * *

0

95. Subpart B of part 646 is revised to read as follows:

Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?

Sec.

646.10 How many applications may an eligible applicant submit and 

for what different populations may an eligible application be 

submitted?

646.11 What assurances and other information must an applicant 

include in an application?

Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?

Sec. 646.10 How many applications may an eligible applicant submit 

and for what different populations may an eligible application be 

submitted?

 (a) An eligible applicant may submit more than one application as 

long as each application describes a project that serves a different 

campus or a designated different population.

 (b) For each grant competition, the Secretary designates, in the 

Federal Register notice inviting applications and other published 

application materials for the competition, the different populations 

for which an eligible entity may submit a separate application.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

Sec. 646.11 What assurances and other information must an applicant 

include in an application?
 (a) An applicant must assure the Secretary in the application 

that--

 (1) Not less than two-thirds of the project participants will be--

 (i) Low-income individuals who are first generation college 

students; or

 (ii) Individuals with disabilities;

 (2) The remaining project participants will be low-income 

individuals, first generation college students, or individuals with 

disabilities; and

 (3) Not less than one-third of the individuals with disabilities 

served also will be low-income individuals.

 (b) The applicant must describe in the application its efforts, and 

where applicable, past history, in--

 (1) Providing sufficient financial assistance to meet the full 

financial need of each student in the project; and

 (2) Maintaining the loan burden of each student in the project at a 

manageable level.

 (c) The applicant must assure the Secretary in the application that 

a student will not be served by more than one SSS project at any one 

time and that the SSS project will collaborate with other SSS and 

McNair projects and other State and institutional programs at the 

grantee-institution so that more students can be served.

 (d) The applicant must assure the Secretary in the application that 

the institution's financial aid office will consult with the SSS 

project with respect to which SSS participants should receive grant aid 

and the amount of the grant aid awards.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840-NEW5)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)

0

96. Section 646.20 is amended by:

0

A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the word ``or'' after the words 

``same population'' and adding, in its place, the word ``and''; 

removing the words ``in delivering services'' and adding, in their 

place, the words ``of high quality service delivery; and adding the 

word ``outcome'' before the word ``criteria''.

0

B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii).

0

C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).

0

D. Revising paragraph (d).

 The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 646.20 How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make?

 (a) * * *

 (2) * * *

 (ii) The maximum total score for all the criteria in Sec. 646.22 

is 15 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in 
parentheses with the criterion.

 (iii) The Secretary evaluates the PE of an applicant for each of 

the three project years that the Secretary designates in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications and the other published 

application materials for the competition.

 (iv) An applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the 

designated project years for which annual performance report data are 

available.

 (v) The final PE score is the average of the scores for the three 

project years assessed.

* * * * *

 (d) The Secretary does not make a new grant to an applicant if the 

applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.

* * * * *

0

97. Section 646.21 is amended by:

0

A. Revising paragraph (b).

0

B. Revising the OMB control number at the end of the section.

 The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 646.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to 

evaluate an application?

* * * * *

 (b) Objectives (8 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of 

the applicant's proposed objectives in the following areas on the basis 

of the extent to which they are both ambitious, as related to the need 

data provided under paragraph (a) of this section, and attainable, 

given the project's plan of operation, budget, and other resources.

 (1) (3 points) Retention in postsecondary education.

 (2) (2 points) In good academic standing at grantee institution.

 (3) Two-year institutions only. (i) (1 point) Certificate or degree 

completion; and

 (ii) (2 points) Certificate or degree completion and transfer to a 

four-year institution.

 (4) Four-year institutions only. (3 points) Completion of a 

baccalaureate degree.

* * * * *

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840-NEW5)

* * * * *

[[Page 65792]]

0

98. Section 646.22 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 646.22 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?
 (a) In the case of an application described in Sec. 

646.20(a)(2)(i), the Secretary--

 (1) Evaluates the applicant's performance under its expiring 

Student Support Services project;

 (2) Uses the approved project objectives for the applicant's 

expiring Student Support Services grant and the information the 

applicant submitted in its annual performance reports (APRs) to 

determine the number of prior PE points; and

 (3) May adjust a calculated PE score or decide not to award PE 

points if other information such as audit reports, site visit reports, 

and project evaluation reports indicates the APR data used to calculate 

PE points are incorrect.

 (b) The Secretary does not award PE points for a given year to an 

applicant that does not serve at least 90 percent of the approved 

number of participants. For purposes of this section, the approved 

number of participants is the total number of participants the project 

would serve as agreed upon by the grantee and the Secretary.

 (c) The Secretary does not award PE points for the criterion 

specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section (Number of participants) 

if the applicant did not serve at least the approved number of 

participants.

 (d) The Secretary uses the approved number of participants, or the 

actual number of participants served in a given year if greater than 

the approved number of participants, as the denominator for calculating 

whether the applicant has met its approved objectives related to 

paragraph (e)(2) of this section (Postsecondary retention) and 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section (Good academic standing).

 (e) For purposes of the PE evaluation of grants awarded after 

January 1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the 

basis of the following outcome criteria:

 (1) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant 

provided services to no less than the approved number of participants.

 (2) (4 points) Postsecondary retention. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its objective regarding the participants served during the 

project year who continue to be enrolled in a program of postsecondary 

education from one academic year to the beginning of the next academic 

year or who complete a program of postsecondary education at the 

grantee institution during the academic year or transfer from a twoyear institution to a four-year institution during the academic year.

 (3) (4 points) Good academic standing. Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its objective regarding the participants served during the 

project year who are in good academic standing at the grantee 

institution.

 (4) (4 points) Degree completion (for an applicant institution of 

higher education offering primarily a baccalaureate or higher degree). 

Whether the applicant met or exceeded its objective regarding the 

current and prior participants receiving a baccalaureate degree at the 

grantee institution within the specified number of years.

 (5) Degree completion and transfer (for an applicant institution of 

higher education offering primarily an associate degree). Whether the 

applicant met or exceeded its objectives regarding the current and 

prior participants at the grantee institution who--

 (i) (2 points) Complete a degree or certificate within the number 

of years specified in the approved objective; and

 (ii) (2 points) Transfer within the number of years specified in 

the approved objective to institutions of higher education that offer 

baccalaureate degrees.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840-NEW10)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11; 1070a-14)

Sec. 646.23 [Amended]

0

99. Section 646.23(b)(1) is amended by removing the amount ``$170,000'' 

and adding, in its place, the amount ``$200,000''.

0

100. A new Sec. 646.24 is added to subpart C of part 646 to read as 

follows:

Sec. 646.24 What is the review process for unsuccessful applicants?

 (a) Technical or administrative error for applications not 

reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated 

during the competition may request that the Secretary review the 

application if--

 (i) The applicant has met all of the application submission 

requirements included in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications and the other published application materials for the 

competition; and

 (ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 

Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or 

administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.

 (2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an 

application includes--

 (i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of 

applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures 

included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the 

competition;

 (ii) An error in determining an applicant's eligibility for funding 

consideration, which may include, but is not limited to--

 (A) An incorrect conclusion that the application was submitted by 

an ineligible applicant;

 (B) An incorrect conclusion that the application exceeded the 

published page limit;

 (C) An incorrect conclusion that the applicant requested funding 

greater than the published maximum award; or

 (D) An incorrect conclusion that the application was missing 

critical sections of the application; and

 (iii) Any other mishandling of the application that resulted in an 

otherwise eligible application not being reviewed during the 

competition.

 (3)(i) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 

Department's agent made a technical or administrative error, the 

Secretary has the application evaluated and scored.

 (ii) If the total score assigned the application would have 

resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the 

program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior 

to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of 
applications described in paragraph (c) of this section.

 (b) Administrative or scoring error for applications that were 

reviewed. (1) An applicant that was not selected for funding during a 

competition may request that the Secretary conduct a second review of 

the application if--

 (i) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 

Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made an 

administrative or scoring error in the review of its application; and

 (ii) The final score assigned to the application is within the 

funding band described in paragraph (d) of this section.

 (2) An administrative error relates to either the PE points or the 

scores assigned to the application by the peer reviewers.

 (i) For PE points, an administrative error includes mathematical 

errors made by the Department or the Department's agent in the 

calculation of the PE points or a failure to correctly add the earned 

PE points to the peer reviewer score.

 (ii) For the peer review score, an administrative error is applying 

the

[[Page 65793]]

wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.

 (3)(i) A scoring error relates only to the peer review process and 

includes errors caused by a reviewer who, in assigning points--

 (A) Uses criteria not required by the applicable law or program 

regulations, the Federal Register notice inviting applications, the 

other published application materials for the competition, or guidance 

provided to the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or

 (B) Does not consider relevant information included in the 

appropriate section of the application.

 (ii) The term ``scoring error'' does not include--

 (A) A peer reviewer's appropriate use of his or her professional 

judgment in evaluating and scoring an application;

 (B) Any situation in which the applicant did not include 

information needed to evaluate its response to a specific selection 

criterion in the appropriate section of the application as stipulated 

in the Federal Register notice inviting applications or the other 

published application materials for the competition; or

 (C) Any error by the applicant.

 (c) Procedures for the second review. (1) To ensure the timely 

awarding of grants under the competition, the Secretary sets aside a 

percentage of the funds allotted for the competition to be awarded 

after the second review is completed.

 (2) After the competition, the Secretary makes new awards in rank 

order as described in Sec. 646.20 based on the available funds for the 

competition minus the funds set aside for the second review.

 (3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to 

successful applicants, the Secretary notifies each unsuccessful 

applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the 

funding band for the second review and provides copies of the peer 

reviewers' evaluations of the applicant's application and the 

applicant's PE score, if applicable.

 (4) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the 

competition as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 

application received a score within the funding band as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second review if the 

applicant demonstrates that the Department, the Department's agent, or 
a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section.

 (5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first 

review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 

application received a score within the funding band as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section has at least 15 calendar days after 

receiving notification that its application was not funded in which to 

submit a written request for a second review in accordance with the 

instructions and due date provided in the Secretary's written 

notification.

 (6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be 

received by the Department or submitted electronically to the 

designated e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established 

by the Secretary.

 (7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 

Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE 

points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, 

the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct 

number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application 

would have resulted in funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds 

the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the 

second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of 

this section.

 (8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the 

Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error 

that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer 

reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score 

assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the 

application during the competition and the program has funds available, 

the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer review of applications described 

in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.

 (9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring 

error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary 

convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the 

requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.

 (10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer 

review are used in the second ranking of applications. The average 

score obtained from the second peer review panel is the final peer 

reviewer score for the application and will be used even if the second 

review results in a lower score for the application than that obtained 

in the initial review.

 (11) For applications in the funding band, the Secretary funds 

these applications in rank order based on adjusted scores and the 

available funds that have been set aside for the second review of 

applications.

 (d) Process for establishing a funding band. (1) For each 

competition, the Secretary establishes a funding band for the second 

review of applications.

 (2) The Secretary establishes the funding band for each competition 

based on the amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second 

review of applications.

 (3) The funding band is composed of those applications--

 (i) With a rank-order score before the second review that is below 

the lowest score of applications funded after the first review; and
 (ii) That would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the 

funds that were set aside for the second review of applications for the 

competition.

 (e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary's determination of whether 

the applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the 

Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application are final and not 

subject to further appeal or challenge.

 (2) An application that scored below the established funding band 

for the competition is not eligible for a second review.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840-NEW5)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

0

101. Section 646.30 is amended by:

0

A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``34 CFR part 74, 

subpart Q'' and adding, in their place, the words ``34 CFR 74.27, 

75.530, and 80.22, as applicable''.

0

B. Revising paragraph (e)

0

C. Revising paragraph (f).

0

D. Adding new paragraphs (i) and (j).

 The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 646.30 What are allowable costs?

* * * * *

 (e) Transportation and, with the prior approval of the Secretary, 

meals and lodging for participants and staff during approved 

educational and cultural activities sponsored by the project.

 (f) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware, software, and 

other equipment, service agreements for such equipment, and supplies 

for participant development, project administration, or project 

recordkeeping.

* * * * *

 (i) Grant aid to eligible students who--

 (1) Are in their first two years of postsecondary education and who 

are receiving Federal Pell Grants under

[[Page 65794]]

subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Act; or

 (2) Have completed their first two years of postsecondary education 

and who are receiving Federal Pell Grants under subpart 1 of part A of 

title IV of the Act if the institution demonstrates to the satisfaction 

of the Secretary that--

 (i) These students are at high risk of dropping out; and

 (ii) It will first meet the needs of all its eligible first- and 
second-year students for services under this paragraph.

 (j) Temporary housing during breaks in the academic year for--

 (1) Students who are homeless children and youths or were formerly 

homeless children and youths; and

 (2) Students who are foster care youth.

* * * * *

Sec. 646.31 [Amended]

0

102. Section 646.31(b) is amended by adding the words ``, except for 

Grant aid under Sec. 646.30(i)'' after the word ``support''.

Sec. 646.32 [Amended]

0

103. Section 646.32 is amended by:

0

A. Redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) as paragraphs (b), 

(c), and (d), and (e) respectively.

0

B. Adding a new paragraph (a).

0

C. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(2), removing the words ``Higher 

Education''.

0

D. In newly redesignated paragraph (b), removing paragraph (b)(3).

0

E. In newly redesignated paragraph (c) introductory text, removing the 

word ``shall'' and adding, in its place, the word ``must''.

0

F. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(3), removing the word ``and''.

0

G. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(4), removing the punctuation 

``.'' and adding, in its place, the words ``; and''.

0

H. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).

0

I. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (d).

0

J. In the OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (e), 

removing the numbers ``1840-0017'' and adding, in their place, the 

numbers ``1840-NEW5''.

 The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 646.32 What other requirements must a grantee meet?

 (a) Number of Participants. For each year of the project period, a 

grantee must serve at least the number of participants that the 

Secretary identifies in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for a competition. Through this notice, the Secretary also 

provides the minimum and maximum grant award amounts for the 
competition.

* * * * *

 (c) * * *

 (5) To the extent practicable, any services the participant 

receives during the project year from another Federal TRIO program or 

another federally funded program that serves populations similar to 

those served under the SSS program.

 (d) Project director. (1) A grantee must employ a full-time project 

director unless--

 (i) The director is also administering one or two additional 

programs for disadvantaged students operated by the sponsoring 

institution or agency; or

 (ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of this requirement.

 (2) The grantee must give the project director sufficient authority 

to administer the project effectively.

 (3) The Secretary waives the requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section if the applicant demonstrates that the project director 

will be able to effectively administer more than three programs and 

that this arrangement would promote effective coordination between the 

program and other Federal TRIO programs (sections 402B through 402F of 

the HEA) or similar programs funded through other sources.

* * * * *

0

104. Section 646.33 is added to subpart D of part 646 to read as 

follows:

Sec. 646.33 What are the matching requirements for a grantee that 

uses Student Support Services program funds for student grant aid?

 (a) Except for grantees described in paragraph (b) of this section, 

a grantee that uses Student Support Services program funds for grant 

aid to eligible students described in Sec. 646.30(i) must--

 (1) Match the Federal funds used for grant aid, in cash, from nonFederal funds, in an amount that is not less than 33 percent of the 

total amount of Federal grant funds used for Grant aid; and

 (2) Use no more than 20 percent of the Federal program funds 

awarded the grantee each year for grant aid.

 (b) A grant recipient that is an institution of higher education 

eligible to receive funds under part A or B of title III or title V of 

the HEA, as amended, is not required to match the Federal funds used 

for grant aid.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840-NEW10)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

PART 647--RONALD E. MCNAIR POSTBACCALAUREATE ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM

0

105. The authority citation for part 647 continues to read as follows:

 Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-15, unless otherwise 

noted.
0

106. Section 647.4 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 647.4 What activities and services does a project provide?

 (a) A McNair project must provide the following services and 

activities:

 (1) Opportunities for research or other scholarly activities at the 

grantee institution or at graduate centers that are designed to provide 

students with effective preparation for doctoral study.

 (2) Summer internships.

 (3) Seminars and other educational activities designed to prepare 

students for doctoral study.

 (4) Tutoring.

 (5) Academic counseling.

 (6) Assistance to students in securing admission to, and financial 

assistance for, enrollment in graduate programs.

 (b) A McNair project may provide the following services and 

activities:

 (1) Education or counseling services designed to improve the 

financial and economic literacy of students, including financial 

planning for postsecondary education.

 (2) Mentoring programs involving faculty members at institutions of 

higher education, students, or a combination of faculty members and 

students.

 (3) Exposure to cultural events and academic programs not usually 

available to disadvantaged students.

 (4) Other activities designed to meet the purpose of the McNair 

Program in Sec. 647.1.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-15)

0

107. Section 647.5 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 647.5 How long is a project period?

 A project period under the McNair program is five years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

0

108. Section 647.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 

follows:

Sec. 647.6 What regulations apply?

* * * * *

 (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations 

(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec. 75.215 through 
75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.

* * * * *

0

109. Section 647.7(b) is amended by:

0

A. Removing the definition of ``Summer internship''.

[[Page 65795]]

0

B. In the definition of ``Graduate center'', revising the introductory 

text.

0

C. Revising the definition of ``Groups underrepresented in graduate 

education''.

0

D. Revising the definition of ``Institution of higher education''.

0

E. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for ``Different 

campus'', ``Different population'', ``Financial and economic 

literacy'', and ``Research or scholarly activity''.

 The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 647.7 What definitions apply?

* * * * *

 (b) * * *

 Different campus means a site of an institution of higher education 

that--

 (1) Is geographically apart from the main campus of the 

institution;

 (2) Is permanent in nature; and

 (3) Offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree, 

certificate, or other recognized educational credential.

 Different population means a group of individuals that an eligible 

entity desires to serve through an application for a grant under the 

McNair TRIO program and that--

 (1) Is separate and distinct from any other population that the 

entity has applied for a grant to serve; or

 (2) While sharing some of the same needs as another population that 

the eligible entity has applied for a grant to serve, has distinct 

needs for specialized services.

 Financial and economic literacy means knowledge about personal 

financial decision-making, which may include but is not limited to

knowledge about--

 (1) Personal and family budget planning;

 (2) Understanding credit-building principles to meet long-term and 

short-term goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit scoring, negative 

impacts on credit scores);

 (3) Cost planning for postsecondary or postbaccalaureate education 

(e.g., spending, saving, personal budgeting);

 (4) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition 

vs. fees, personal costs);

 (5) Financial assistance (e.g., searches, application processes, 

and differences between private and government loans, assistanceships); 
and

 (6) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid (FAFSA).

* * * * *

 Graduate center means an institution of higher education as defined 

in sections 101 and 102 of the HEA; and that--

* * * * *

 Groups underrepresented in graduate education. The following ethnic 

and racial groups are considered underrepresented in graduate 

education: Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, American Indian, Alaskan 

Native (as defined in section 7306 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)), Native Hawaiians (as defined 

in section 7207 of the ESEA), and Native American Pacific Islanders (as 

defined in section 320 of the HEA).

 Institution of higher education means an educational institution as 

defined in sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.

* * * * *

 Research or scholarly activity means an educational activity that 

is more rigorous than is typically available to undergraduates in a 

classroom setting, that is definitive in its start and end dates, 

contains appropriate benchmarks for completion of various components, 

and is conducted under the guidance of an appropriate faculty member 

with experience in the relevant discipline.

* * * * *

Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?

0

110. Subpart B of part 647 is amended by revising the subpart heading 

to read as set forth above.

Sec. 647.10 [Redesignated as Sec. 647.11]

0

110a. Redesignate Sec. 647.10 as Sec. 647.11.

0

111. Section 647.10 is added to subpart B of part 647 to read as 

follows:

Sec. 647.10 How many applications may an eligible applicant submit?

 (a) An applicant may submit more than one application for McNair 

grants as long as each application describes a project that serves a 

different campus or a designated different population.

 (b) For each grant competition, the Secretary designates, in the 

Federal Register notice inviting applications and the other published 

application materials for the competition, the different populations 

for which an eligible entity may submit a separate application.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-15; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3))
0

112. Newly redesignated Sec. 647.11 is amended by adding paragraph (d) 

to read as follows:

Sec. 647.11 What assurances must an applicant submit?

* * * * *

 (d) A student will not be served by more than one McNair project at 

any one time and that the McNair project will collaborate with other 

McNair and SSS projects and other State and institutional programs at 

the grantee-institution, including those supporting undergraduate 

research, so that more students can be served.

* * * * *

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-15; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3))

0

113. Section 647.20 is amended by:

0

A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), adding the words ``of high quality service 

delivery'' after the words ``prior experience'' and adding the word 

``outcome'' before the word ``criteria''.

0

B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii).

0

C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iv), (a)(2)(v), and (a)(2)(vi).

0

D. Revising paragraph (d).

 The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 647.20 How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make?

 (a) * * *

 (2) * * *

 (ii) The maximum total score for all the criteria in Sec. 647.22 

is 15 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in 

parentheses with the criterion.

* * * * *

 (iv) The Secretary evaluates the PE of an applicant for each of the 

three project years that the Secretary designates in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications and the other published 

application materials for the competition.

 (v) An applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the 

designated project years for which annual performance report data are 

available.

 (vi) The final PE score is the average of the scores for the three 

project years assessed.

* * * * *

 (d) The Secretary does not make a new grant to an applicant if the 

applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.

* * * * *

0

114. Section 647.21 is amended by:
0

A. Revising paragraph (b).

0

B. Adding an OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (d).

 The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec. 647.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use?

* * * * *

[[Page 65796]]

 (b) Objectives (9 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of 

the applicant's objectives and proposed targets (percentages) in the 

following areas on the basis of the extent to which they are both 

ambitious, as related to the need data provided under paragraph (a) of 

this section, and attainable, given the project's plan of operation, 

budget, and other resources:

 (1) (2 points) Research or scholarly activity.

 (2) (3 points) Enrollment in a graduate program.

 (3) (2 points) Continued enrollment in graduate study.

 (4) (2 points) Doctoral degree attainment.

* * * * *

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840-NEW6)

* * * * *

0

115. Section 647.22 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 647.22 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?

 (a) In the case of an applicant described in Sec. 647.20(a)(2)(i), 

the Secretary--

 (1) Evaluates an applicant's performance under its expiring McNair 

project;

 (2) Uses the approved project objectives for the applicant's 

expiring McNair grant and the information the applicant submitted in 

its annual performance reports (APRs) to determine the number of PE 

points; and

 (3) May adjust a calculated PE score or decide not to award PE 

points if other information such as audit reports, site visit reports, 

and project evaluation reports indicates the APR data used to calculate 

PE are incorrect.

 (b) The Secretary does not award PE points for a given year to an 

applicant that does not serve at least 90 percent of the approved 

number of participants. For purposes of this section, the approved 

number of participants is the total number of participants the project 

would serve as agreed upon by the grantee and the Secretary.

 (c) The Secretary does not award any PE points for the criteria 

specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section (Number of participants) 

if the applicant did not serve at least the approved number of 

participants.
 (d) The Secretary uses the approved number of participants, or the 

actual number of participants served in a given year if greater than 

the approved number of participants, as the denominator for calculating 

whether the applicant has met its approved objective related to 

paragraph (e)(2) of this section (Research and scholarly activities).

 (e) For purposes of the PE evaluation of grants awarded after 

January 1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the 

basis of the following outcome criteria:

 (1) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant 

provided services to no less than the approved number of participants.

 (2) (3 points) Research or scholarly activities. Whether the 

applicant met or exceeded its objective for providing participants 

served during the project year with appropriate research and scholarly 

activities each academic year.

 (3) (3 points) Graduate school enrollment. Whether the applicant 

met or exceeded its objective with regard to the acceptance and 

enrollment in graduate programs of participants served during the 

project year who complete the baccalaureate program during the academic 

year.

 (4) (4 points) Continued enrollment in graduate school. Whether the 

applicant met or exceeded its objective with regard to the continued 

enrollment in graduate school of prior participants.

 (5) (2 points) Doctoral degree attainment. Whether the applicant 

met or exceeded its objective with regard to the attainment of doctoral 

level degrees of prior participants in the specified number of years.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840-NEW11)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-15)

Sec. 647.23 [Amended]

0

116. Section 647.23 is amended by:

0

A. In paragraph (b), introductory text, removing the words ``beginning 

in fiscal year 1995''.

0

B. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the amount ``$190,000'' and adding, in 

its place, the amount ``$200,000''.

0

117. Section 647.24 is added to subpart C of part 647 to read as 

follows:

Sec. 647.24 What is the review process for unsuccessful applicants?

 (a) Technical or administrative error for applications not 

reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated 

during the competition may request that the Secretary review the 

application if--

 (i) The applicant has met all of the application submission 
requirements included in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications and the other published application materials for the 

competition; and

 (ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 

Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or 

administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.

 (2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an 

application includes--

 (i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of 

applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures 

included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the 

competition;

 (ii) An error in determining an applicant's eligibility for funding 

consideration, which may include, but is not limited to--

 (A) An incorrect conclusion that the application was submitted by 

an ineligible applicant;

 (B) An incorrect conclusion that the application exceeded the 

published page limit;

 (C) An incorrect conclusion that the applicant requested funding 

greater than the published maximum award; or

 (D) An incorrect conclusion that the application was missing 

critical sections of the application; and

 (iii) Any other mishandling of the application that resulted in an 

otherwise eligible application not being reviewed during the 

competition.

 (3)(i) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 

Department's agent made a technical or administrative error, the 

Secretary has the application evaluated and scored.

 (ii) If the total score assigned the application would have 

resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the 

program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior 

to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of 

applications described in paragraph (c) of this section.

 (b) Administrative or scoring error for applications that were 

reviewed. (1) An applicant that was not selected for funding during a 

competition may request that the Secretary conduct a second review of 

the application if--

 (i) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 

Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made an 

administrative or scoring error in the review of its application; and

 (ii) The final score assigned to the application is within the 

funding band described in paragraph (d) of this section.

 (2) An administrative error relates to either the PE points or the 

scores assigned to the application by the peer reviewers.

 (i) For PE points, an administrative error includes mathematical 

errors made by the Department or the Department's

[[Page 65797]]

agent in the calculation of the PE points or a failure to correctly add 

the earned PE points to the peer reviewer score.

 (ii) For the peer review score, an administrative error is applying 

the wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.

 (3)(i) A scoring error relates only to the peer review process and 

includes errors caused by a reviewer who, in assigning points--

 (A) Uses criteria not required by the applicable law or program 

regulations, the Federal Register notice inviting applications, the 
other published application materials for the competition, or guidance 

provided to the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or

 (B) Does not consider relevant information included in the 

appropriate section of the application.

 (ii) The term ``scoring error'' does not include--

 (A) A peer reviewer's appropriate use of his or her professional 

judgment in evaluating and scoring an application;

 (B) Any situation in which the applicant did not include 

information needed to evaluate its response to a specific selection 

criterion in the appropriate section of the application as stipulated 

in the Federal Register notice inviting applications or the other 

published application materials for the competition; or

 (C) Any error by the applicant.

 (c) Procedures for the second review. (1) To ensure the timely 

awarding of grants under the competition, the Secretary sets aside a 

percentage of the funds allotted for the competition to be awarded 

after the second review is completed.

 (2) After the competition, the Secretary makes new awards in rank 

order as described in Sec. 647.20 based on the available funds for the 

competition minus the funds set aside for the second review.

 (3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to 

successful applicants, the Secretary notifies each unsuccessful 

applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the 

funding band for the second review and provides copies of the peer 

reviewers' evaluations of the applicant's application and the 

applicant's PE score, if applicable.

 (4) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the 

competition as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 

application received a score within the funding band as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second review if the 

applicant demonstrates that the Department, the Department's agent, or 

a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section.

 (5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first 

review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 

application received a score within the funding band as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section has at least 15 calendar days after 

receiving notification that its application was not funded in which to 

submit a written request for a second review in accordance with the 

instructions and due date provided in the Secretary's written 

notification.

 (6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be 

received by the Department or submitted electronically to a designated 

e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established by the 

Secretary.

 (7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 

Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE 

points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, 

the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct 

number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application 

would have resulted in funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds 

the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the 

second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of 

this section.

 (8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the 

Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error 
that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer 

reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score 

assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the 

application during the competition and the program has funds available, 

the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer review of applications described 

in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.

 (9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring 

error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary 

convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the 

requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.

 (10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer 

review are used in the second ranking of applications. The average 

score obtained from the second peer review panel is the final peer 

reviewer score for the application and will be used even if the second 

review results in a lower score for the application than that obtained 

in the initial review.

 (11) For applications in the funding band, the Secretary funds 

these applications in rank order based on adjusted scores and the 

available funds that have been set aside for the second review of 

applications.

 (d) Process for establishing a funding band. (1) For each 

competition, the Secretary establishes a funding band for the second 

review of applications.

 (2) The Secretary establishes the funding band for each competition 

based on the amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second 

review of applications.

 (3) The funding band is composed of those applications--

 (i) With a rank-order score before the second review that is below 

the lowest score of applications funded after the first review; and

 (ii) That would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the 

funds that were set aside for the second review of applications for the 

competition.

 (e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary's determination of whether 

the applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the 

Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application are final and not 

subject to further appeal or challenge.

 (2) An application that scored below the established funding band 

for the competition is not eligible for a second review.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840-NEW6)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

0

118. Section 647.30 amended by:

0

A. In paragraph (b), removing the amount ``$2,400'' and, adding, in its 

place, the amount ``$2,800''.

0

B. Revising paragraph (d).

 The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 647.30 What are allowable costs?

* * * * *

 (d) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware, software, and 

other equipment, service agreements for such equipment, and supplies 

for participant development, project administration, or project 

recordkeeping.

0

119. Section 647.32 is amended by:

0

A. Redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) as (b), (c), (d), 

and (e), respectively.

0

B. Adding a new paragraph (a).

0

C. In newly redesignated paragraph (c), adding a new paragraph (c)(5).

0

D. Adding an OMB control number parenthetical following newlyredesignated paragraph (e).

 The addition and revisions read as follows:

[[Page 65798]]

Sec. 647.32 What other requirements must a grantee meet?

 (a) Number of Participants. For each year of the project period, a 

grantee must serve at least the number of participants that the 

Secretary identifies in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for a competition. Through this notice, the Secretary also 

provides the minimum and maximum grant award amounts for the 

competition.

* * * * *

 (c) * * *

 (5) To the extent practicable, any services the participant 

receives during the project year from another Federal TRIO program or 

another federally funded program that serves populations similar to 

those served under the McNair program.

* * * * *

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1840-NEW11)

* * * * *

PART 694--GAINING EARLY AWARENESS AND READINESS FOR UNDERGRADUATE 

PROGRAMS (GEAR UP)

0

120. The authority citation for Part 694 continues to read as follows:

 Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21 to 1070a-28.
0

121. Section 694.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text to read as follows:

Sec. 694.1 What is the maximum amount that the Secretary may award 

each fiscal year to a Partnership or a State under this program?

 (a) Partnership grants. The Secretary may establish the maximum 

amount that may be awarded each fiscal year for a GEAR UP Partnership 

grant in a notice published in the Federal Register. The maximum amount 

for which a Partnership may apply may not exceed the lesser of the

maximum amount established by the Secretary, if applicable, or the 

amount calculated by multiplying--

* * * * *

0

122. Section 694.4 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows:

Sec. 694.4 Which students must a State or Partnership serve when 

there are changes in the cohort?

* * * * *

 (b) * * *

 (2) Must continue to provide GEAR UP services to at least those 

students in the cohort who attend one or more participating schools 

that together enroll a substantial majority of the students in the 

cohort.

* * * * *

0

123. Section 694.7 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 694.7 What are the matching requirements for a GEAR UP grant?

 (a) In order to be eligible for GEAR UP funding--

 (1) An applicant must state in its application the percentage of 

the cost of the GEAR UP project the applicant will provide for each 

year from non-Federal funds, subject to the requirements in paragraph 

(b) of this section; and

 (2) A grantee must make substantial progress towards meeting the 

matching percentage stated in its approved application for each year of 

the project period.

 (b) Except as provided in Sec. Sec. 694.8 and 694.9, the nonFederal 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 nonFederal contributions for every one dollar of Federal funds obligated 

for the project) over the project period.

 (c) The non-Federal share of the cost of a GEAR UP project may be 

provided in cash or in-kind.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-23)
0

124. Part 694 is amended by redesignating Sec. Sec. 694.8, 694.9, 

694.10, 694.11, 694.12, 694.13, and 694.15 as follows:

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

 Old section New section

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

Sec. 694.8............................................ Sec. 694.10

Sec. 694.9............................................ Sec. 694.11

Sec. 694.10........................................... Sec. 694.13

Sec. 694.11........................................... Sec. 694.15

Sec. 694.12........................................... Sec. 694.17

Sec. 694.13........................................... Sec. 694.18

Sec. 694.15........................................... Sec. 694.19

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

0

125. New Sec. 694.8 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 694.8 Under what conditions may the Secretary approve a request 

from a Partnership applying for a GEAR UP grant to waive a portion of 

the matching requirement?

 (a) The Secretary may approve a Partnership applicant's request for 

a waiver of up to 75 percent of the matching requirement for up to two 

years if the applicant demonstrates in its application a significant 

economic hardship that stems from a specific, exceptional, or 

uncontrollable event, such as a natural disaster, that has a 

devastating effect on the members of the Partnership and the community 

in which the project would operate.

 (b)(1) The Secretary may approve a Partnership applicant's request 

to waive up to 50 percent of the matching requirement for up to two 

years if the applicant demonstrates in its application a pre-existing 

and an on-going significant economic hardship that precludes the 

applicant from meeting its matching requirement.

 (2) In determining whether an applicant is experiencing an on-going 

economic hardship that is significant enough to justify a waiver under 

this paragraph, the Secretary considers documentation of such factors 

as:

 (i) Severe distress in the local economy of the community to be 

served by the grant (e.g., there are few employers in the local area, 

large employers have left the local area, or significant reductions in 

employment in the local area).

 (ii) Local unemployment rates that are higher than the national 

average.

 (iii) Low or decreasing revenues for State and County governments 

in the area to be served by the grant.

 (iv) Significant reductions in the budgets of institutions of 

higher education that are participating in the grant.

 (v) Other data that reflect a significant economic hardship for the 

geographical area served by the applicant.

 (3) At the time of application, the Secretary may provide tentative 

approval of an applicant's request for a waiver under paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section for all remaining years of the project period. Grantees 

that receive tentative approval of a waiver for more than two years 

under this paragraph must submit to the Secretary every two years by 

such time as the Secretary may direct documentation that demonstrates 

that--

 (i) The significant economic hardship upon which the waiver was 

granted still exists; and

 (ii) The grantee tried diligently, but unsuccessfully, to obtain 

contributions needed to meet the matching requirement.

 (c) The Secretary may approve a Partnership applicant's request in 

its application to match its contributions to its scholarship fund, 

established under section 404E of the HEA, on the basis of two nonFederal dollars for every one Federal dollar of GEAR UP funds.

 (d) The Secretary may approve a request by a Partnership applicant 

that has three or fewer institutions of higher education as members to 

waive up to 70 percent of the matching requirement if the Partnership 

applicant includes--

 (1) A fiscal agent that is eligible to receive funds under title V, 

or Part B of

[[Page 65799]]

title III, or section 316 or 317 of the HEA, or a local educational 

agency;

 (2) Only participating schools with a 7th grade cohort in which at 

least 75 percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act; and

 (3) Only local educational agencies in which at least 50 percent of 

the students enrolled are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 

under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-23)

0

126. New Sec. 694.9 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 694.9 Under what conditions may the Secretary approve a request 

from a Partnership that has received a GEAR UP grant to waive a portion 

of the matching requirement?

 (a) After a grant is awarded, the Secretary may approve a 

Partnership grantee's written request for a waiver of up to--

 (1) 50 percent of the matching requirement for up to two years if 

the grantee demonstrates that--

 (i) The matching contributions described for those two years in the 

grantee's approved application are no longer available; and

 (ii) The grantee has exhausted all funds and sources of potential 

contributions for replacing the matching funds.

 (2) 75 percent of the matching requirement for up to two years if 

the grantee demonstrates that matching contributions from the original 

application are no longer available due to an uncontrollable event, 

such as a natural disaster, that has a devastating economic effect on 

members of the Partnership and the community in which the project would 

operate.
 (b) In determining whether the grantee has exhausted all funds and 

sources of potential contributions for replacing matching funds, the 

Secretary considers the grantee's documentation of key factors such as 

the following and their direct impact on the grantee:

 (1) A reduction of revenues from State government, County 

government, or the local educational agency (LEA).

 (2) An increase in local unemployment rates.

 (3) Significant reductions in the operating budgets of institutions 

of higher education that are participating in the grant.

 (4) A reduction of business activity in the local area (e.g., large 

employers have left the local area).

 (5) Other data that reflect a significant decrease in resources 

available to the grantee in the local geographical area served by the 

grantee.

 (c) If a grantee has received one or more waivers under this 

section or under Sec. 694.8, the grantee may request an additional 

waiver of the matching requirement under this section no earlier than 

60 days before the expiration of the grantee's existing waiver.

 (d) The Secretary may grant an additional waiver request for up to 

50 percent of the matching requirement for a period of up to two years 

beyond the expiration of any previous waiver.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-23)

0

127. New Sec. 694.12 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 694.12 Under what conditions do State and Partnership GEAR UP 

grantees make section 404E scholarship awards?

 (a)(1) State Grantees. All State grantees must establish or 

maintain a financial assistance program that awards section 404E 

scholarships to students in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 

694.13 or Sec. 694.14, as applicable.

 (2) Partnership Grantees. Partnerships may, but are not required, 

to award scholarships to eligible students. If a Partnership awards 

scholarships to eligible students pursuant to section 404E of the HEA, 

it must comply with the requirements of Sec. 694.13 or Sec. 694.14, 

as applicable.

 (b)(1) Section 404E scholarship awards for grantees whose initial 

GEAR UP grant awards were made prior to August 14, 2008. A State or 

Partnership grantee making section 404E scholarship awards using funds 

from GEAR UP grant awards that were made prior to August 14, 2008, must 

provide such scholarship awards in accordance with the requirements of 

Sec. 694.13 unless it elects to provide the scholarships in accordance 

with the requirements of Sec. 694.14 pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section.

 (2) Election to use Sec. 694.14 requirements. A State or 

Partnership grantee making section 404E scholarship awards using funds 

from GEAR UP grant awards that were made prior to August 14, 2008, may 

provide such scholarship awards in accordance with the requirements of 

Sec. 694.14 (rather than the requirements of Sec. 694.13) provided 

that the grantee--

 (i) Informs the Secretary, in writing, of its election to make the 
section 404E scholarship awards in accordance with the requirements of 

Sec. 694.14; and

 (ii) Such election does not decrease the amount of the scholarship 

promised to any individual student under the grant.

 (c) Section 404E scholarship awards for grantees whose initial GEAR 

UP grant awards were made on or after August 14, 2008. A State or 

Partnership grantee making section 404E scholarship awards using funds 

from GEAR UP grant awards that were made on or after August 14, 2008, 

must provide such scholarship awards in accordance with the 

requirements of Sec. 694.14.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-25)

0

128. Newly redesignated Sec. 694.13 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 694.13 What are the requirements concerning section 404E 

scholarship awards for grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were 

made prior to August 14, 2008?

 The following requirements apply to section 404E scholarship awards 

for grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were made prior to 

August 14, 2008 unless the grantee elects to provide such scholarship 

awards in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 694.14 pursuant to 

Sec. 694.12(b)(2).

 (a)(1) The maximum scholarship amount that an eligible student may 

receive under this section must be established by the grantee.

 (2) The minimum scholarship amount that an eligible student 

receives in a fiscal year pursuant to this section must not be less 

than the lesser of--

 (i) 75 percent of the average cost of attendance for an in-State 

student, in a four-year program of instruction, at public institutions 

of higher education in the student's State; or

 (ii) The maximum Federal Pell Grant award funded under section 401 

of the HEA for the award year in which the scholarship is awarded.

 (3) If an eligible student who is awarded a GEAR UP scholarship 

attends an institution of higher education on a less than full-time 

basis during any award year, the State or Partnership awarding the GEAR 

UP scholarship may reduce the scholarship amount, but in no case may 

the percentage reduction in the scholarship be greater than the 

percentage reduction in tuition and fees charged to that student.

 (b) Scholarships provided under this section may not be considered 

for the purpose of awarding Federal grant assistance under title IV of 

the HEA, except that in no case may the total amount of student 

financial assistance awarded to a student under title IV of the HEA 

exceed the student's total cost of attendance.

 (c) Grantees providing section 404E scholarship awards in 

accordance with this section--

[[Page 65800]]

 (1) Must award GEAR UP scholarships first to students who will 

receive, or are eligible to receive, a Federal Pell Grant during the 

award year in which the GEAR UP scholarship is being awarded; and
 (2) May, if GEAR UP scholarship funds remain after awarding 

scholarships to students under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, award 

GEAR UP scholarships to other eligible students (i.e., students who are 

not eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant) after considering the 

need of those students for GEAR UP scholarships.

 (d) For purposes of this section, an eligible student is a student 

who--

 (1) Is less than 22 years old at the time of award of the student's 

first GEAR UP scholarship;

 (2) Has received a secondary school diploma or its recognized 

equivalent on or after January 1, 1993;

 (3) Is enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a program of 

undergraduate instruction at an institution of higher education that is 

located within the State's boundaries, except that, at the grantee's 

option, a State or Partnership may offer scholarships to students who 

attend institutions of higher education outside the State; and

 (4) Has participated in activities under Sec. 694.21 or Sec. 

694.22.

 (e) A State using a priority approach may award scholarships under 

paragraph (a) of this section to eligible students identified by 

priority at any time during the grant award period rather than 

reserving scholarship funds for use only in the seventh year of a 

project or after the grant award period.

 (f) A State or a Partnership that makes scholarship awards from 

GEAR UP funds in accordance with this section must award continuation 

scholarships in successive award years to each student who received an 

initial scholarship and who is enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a 

program of undergraduate instruction at an institution of higher 

education.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21 to 1070a-28)

0

129. Section 694.14 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 694.14 What are the requirements concerning section 404E 

scholarship awards for grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were 

made on or after August 14, 2008?

 The following requirements apply to section 404E scholarship awards 

provided by grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were made on or 

after August 14, 2008 and any section 404E scholarship awards for 

grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were issued prior to August 

14, 2008, but who, pursuant to Sec. 694.12(b)(2), elected to use the 

Sec. 694.14 requirements (rather than the Sec. 694.13 requirements).

 (a)(1) The maximum scholarship amount that an eligible student may 

receive under section 404E of the HEA must be established by the 

grantee.

 (2) The minimum scholarship amount that an eligible student 

receives in a fiscal year must not be less than the minimum Federal 

Pell Grant award under section 401 of the HEA at the time of award.

 (3) If an eligible student who is awarded a GEAR UP scholarship 

attends an institution of higher education on a less than full-time 
basis during any award year, the State or Partnership awarding the GEAR 

UP scholarship may reduce the scholarship amount, but in no case may 

the percentage reduction in the scholarship be greater than the 

percentage reduction in tuition and fees charged to that student.

 (b) For purposes of this section, an eligible student is a student 

who--

 (1) Is less than 22 years old at the time of award of the first 

GEAR UP scholarship;

 (2) Has received a secondary school diploma or its recognized 

equivalent on or after January 1, 1993;

 (3) Is enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a program of 

undergraduate instruction at an institution of higher education that is 

located within the State's boundaries, except that, at the grantee's 

option, a State or Partnership may offer scholarships to students who 

attend institutions of higher education outside the State; and

 (4) Has participated in the activities required under Sec. 694.21.

 (c)(1) By the time students who have received services from a State 

grant have completed the twelfth grade, a State that has not received a 

waiver under section 404E(b)(2) of the HEA of the requirement to spend 

at least 50 percent of its GEAR UP funds on scholarships must have in 

reserve an amount that is not less than the minimum Federal Pell Grant 

multiplied by the number of students the State estimates will enroll in 

an institution of higher education.

 (2) Consistent with paragraph (a) of this section and Sec. 

694.16(a), States must use funds held in reserve to make scholarships 

to eligible students.

 (3) Scholarships must be made to all students who are eligible 

under the definition in paragraph (b) of this section. A grantee may 

not impose additional eligibility criteria that would have the effect 

of limiting or denying a scholarship to an eligible student.

 (d) A State using a priority approach may award scholarships under 

paragraph (a) of this section to eligible students identified by 

priority at any time during the grant award period rather than 

reserving scholarship funds for use only in the seventh year of a 

project or after the grant award period.

 (e) States providing scholarships must provide information on the 

eligibility requirements for the scholarships to all participating 

students upon the students' entry into the GEAR UP program.

 (f) A State must provide scholarship funds as described in this 

section to all eligible students who attend an institution of higher 

education in the State, and may provide these scholarship funds to 

eligible students who attend institutions of higher education outside 

the State.

 (g) A State or a Partnership that chooses to participate in the 

scholarship component in accordance with section 404E of the HEA may 

award continuation scholarships in successive award years to each 

student who received an initial scholarship and who is enrolled or 

accepted for enrollment in a program of undergraduate instruction at an 

institution of higher education.

 (h) A GEAR UP scholarship, provided under section 404E of the HEA, 

may not be considered in the determination of a student's eligibility 

for other grant assistance provided under title IV of the HEA, except 

that in no case may the total amount of student financial assistance 

awarded to a student under title IV of the HEA exceed the student's 

total cost of attendance.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-25)
0

130. Newly redesignated Sec. 694.15 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 694.15 May a Partnership that does not award scholarships under 

section 404E of the HEA provide, as part of a GEAR UP project, 

financial assistance for postsecondary education using non-Federal 

funds?

 A GEAR UP Partnership that does not participate in the GEAR UP 

scholarship component may provide financial assistance for 

postsecondary education with non-Federal funds, and those funds may be 

used to satisfy the matching requirement.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21 to 1070a-28)

0

131. Section 694.16 is added to read as follows:

[[Page 65801]]

Sec. 694.16 What are the requirements for redistribution or return of 

scholarship funds not awarded to a project's eligible students?

 The following requirements apply only to section 404E scholarship 

awards for grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were made on or 

after August 14, 2008, and to any section 404E scholarship awards for 

grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were made prior to August 

14, 2008, but who, pursuant to Sec. 694.12(b)(2), elect to use the 

Sec. 694.14 requirements (rather than the Sec. 694.13 requirements):

 (a) Scholarship funds held in reserve by States under Sec. 

694.14(c) or by Partnerships under section 404D(b)(7) of the HEA that 

are not used by eligible students as defined in Sec. 694.14(b) within 

six years of the students' scheduled completion of secondary school may 

be redistributed by the grantee to other eligible students.

 (b) Any Federal scholarship funds that are not used by eligible 

students within six years of the students' scheduled completion of 

secondary school, and are not redistributed by the grantee to other 

eligible students, must be returned to the Secretary within 45 days 

after the six-year period for expending the scholarship funds expires.

 (c) Grantees that reserve funds for scholarships must annually 

furnish information, as the Secretary may require, on the amount of 

Federal and non-Federal funds reserved and held for GEAR UP 

scholarships and the disbursement of these scholarship funds to 

eligible students until these funds are fully expended or returned to 

the Secretary.

 (d) A scholarship fund is subject to audit or monitoring by 

authorized representatives of the Secretary throughout the life of the 

fund.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-25(e))
0

132. Newly redesignated Sec. 694.18 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 694.18 What requirements must be met by a Partnership or State 

participating in GEAR UP with respect to 21st Century Scholarship 

Certificates?

 (a) A State or Partnership must provide, in accordance with 

procedures the Secretary may specify, a 21st Century Scholar 

Certificate to each student participating in its GEAR UP project.

 (b) 21st Century Scholarship Certificates must be personalized and 

indicate the amount of Federal financial aid for college and the 

estimated amount of any scholarship provided under section 404E of the 

HEA, if applicable, that a student may be eligible to receive.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-26)

0

133. Newly redesignated Sec. 694.19 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 694.19 What priorities does the Secretary establish for a GEAR 

UP grant?

 The Secretary awards competitive preference priority points to an 

eligible applicant for a State grant that has both--

 (a) Carried out a successful State GEAR UP grant prior to August 

14, 2008, determined on the basis of data (including outcome data) 

submitted by the applicant as part of its annual and final performance 

reports, and the applicant's history of compliance with applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements; and

 (b) A prior, demonstrated commitment to early intervention leading 

to college access through collaboration and replication of successful 

strategies.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21(b))

0

134. New Sec. 694.20 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 694.20 When may a GEAR UP grantee provide services to students 

attending an institution of higher education?

 (a) The Secretary authorizes an eligible State or Partnership to 

provide GEAR UP services to students attending an institution of higher 

education if the State or Partnership--

 (1) Applies for and receives a new GEAR UP award after August 14, 

2008, and

 (2) In its application, requested a seventh year so that it may 
continue to provide services to students through their first year of

attendance at an institution of higher education.

 (b) A State grantee that uses a priority (rather than or in 

addition to a cohort) approach to identify participating students may, 

consistent with its approved application and at any time during the 

project period, provide services to students during their first year of 

attendance at an institution of higher education, provided that the 

grantee continues to provide all required services throughout the 

Federal budget period to GEAR UP students still enrolled in a local 

educational agency.

 (c) If a grantee is awarded a seven year grant, consistent with the 

grantee's approved application, during the seventh year of the grant 

the grantee--

 (1) Must provide services to students in their first year of 

attendance at an institution of higher education; and

 (2) May choose to provide services to high school students who have 

yet to graduate.

 (d) Grantees that continue to provide services under this part to 

students through their first year of attendance at an institution of 

higher education must, to the extent practicable, coordinate with other 

campus programs, including academic support services to enhance, not 

duplicate service.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21(b)(2))

0

135. New Sec. 694.21 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 694.21 What are required activities for GEAR UP projects?

 A grantee must provide comprehensive mentoring, outreach, and 

supportive services to students participating in the GEAR UP program. 

These services must include the following activities:

 (a) Providing information regarding financial aid for postsecondary 

education to eligible participating students.

 (b) Encouraging student enrollment in rigorous and challenging 

curricula and coursework, in order to reduce the need for remedial 

coursework at the postsecondary level.

 (c) Implementing activities to improve the number of participating 

students who--

 (1) Obtain a secondary school diploma, and

 (2) Complete applications for, and enroll in, a program of 

postsecondary education.

 (d) In the case of a State grantee that has not received a 100-

percent waiver under section 404E(b)(2) of the HEA, providing 

scholarships in accordance with section 404E of the HEA.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-24(a))

0

136. New Sec. 694.22 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 694.22 What other activities may all GEAR UP projects provide?

 A grantee may use grant funds to carry out one or more of the 

following services and activities:

 (a) Providing tutors and mentors, who may include adults or former 

participants in a GEAR UP program, for eligible students.

 (b) Conducting outreach activities to recruit priority students 

(identified in section 404D(d) of the HEA) to participate in program 

activities.

 (c) Providing supportive services to eligible students.

 (d) Supporting the development or implementation of rigorous 

academic curricula, which may include college

[[Page 65802]]

preparatory, Advanced Placement, or International Baccalaureate 

programs, and providing participating students access to rigorous core 

academic courses that reflect challenging State academic standards.

 (e) Supporting dual or concurrent enrollment programs between the 

secondary school and institution of higher education partners of a GEAR 

UP Partnership, and other activities that support participating 

students in--

 (1) Meeting challenging State academic standards;

 (2) Successfully applying for postsecondary education;

 (3) Successfully applying for student financial aid; and

 (4) Developing graduation and career plans, including career 

awareness and planning assistance as they relate to a rigorous academic 

curriculum.

 (f) Providing special programs or tutoring in science, technology, 

engineering, or mathematics.

 (g) For Partnerships, providing scholarships described in section 

404E of the HEA, and for all grantees providing appropriate 

administrative support for GEAR UP scholarships.

 (h) Introducing eligible students to institutions of higher 

education, through trips and school-based sessions.

 (i) Providing an intensive extended school day, school year, or 

summer program that offers--

 (1) Additional academic classes; or

 (2) Assistance with college admission applications.

 (j) Providing other activities designed to ensure secondary school 

completion and postsecondary education enrollment of at-risk children, 

such as:

 (1) Identification of at-risk children.

 (2) After-school and summer tutoring.

 (3) Assistance to at-risk children in obtaining summer jobs.

 (4) Academic counseling.

 (5) Financial and economic literacy education or counseling.

 (6) Volunteer and parent involvement.

 (7) Encouraging former or current participants of a GEAR UP program 

to serve as peer counselors.

 (8) Skills assessments.

 (9) Personal and family counseling, and home visits.

 (10) Staff development.

 (11) Programs and activities that are specially designed for 

students who are limited English proficient.

 (k) Enabling eligible students to enroll in Advanced Placement or 
International Baccalaureate courses, or college entrance examination 

preparation courses.

 (l) Providing services to eligible students in the participating 

cohort described in Sec. 694.3 through the first year of attendance at 

an institution of higher education.

 (m) Fostering and improving parent and family involvement in 

elementary and secondary education by promoting the advantages of a 

college education, and emphasizing academic admission requirements and 

the need to take college preparation courses, through parent engagement 

and leadership activities.

 (n) Disseminating information that promotes the importance of 

higher education, explains college preparation and admission 

requirements, and raises awareness of the resources and services 

provided by the eligible entities to eligible students, their families, 

and communities.

 (o) For a GEAR UP Partnership grant, in the event that matching 

funds described in the approved application are no longer available, 

engaging other potential partners in a collaborative manner to provide 

matching resources and to participate in other activities authorized in 

Sec. Sec. 694.21, 694.22, and 694.23.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-24(b))

0

137. New Sec. 694.23 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 694.23 What additional activities are allowable for State GEAR 

UP projects?

 In addition to the required and permissible activities identified 

in Sec. Sec. 694.21 and 694.22, a State may use grant funds to carry 

out one or more of the following services and activities:

 (a) Providing technical assistance to--

 (1) Secondary schools that are located within the State; or

 (2) Partnerships that are eligible to apply for a GEAR UP grant and 

that are located within the State.

 (b) Providing professional development opportunities to individuals 

working with eligible cohorts of students.

 (c) Providing administrative support to help build the capacity of 

Partnerships to compete for and manage grants awarded under the GEAR UP 

program.

 (d) Providing strategies and activities that align efforts in the 

State to prepare eligible students to attend and succeed in 

postsecondary education, which may include the development of 

graduation and career plans.

 (e) Disseminating information on the use of scientifically valid 

research and best practices to improve services for eligible students.

 (f)(1) Disseminating information on effective coursework and 

support services that assist students in achieving the goals described 

in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section, and

 (2) Identifying and disseminating information on best practices 

with respect to--

 (i) Increasing parental involvement; and

 (ii) Preparing students, including students with disabilities and 
students who are limited English proficient, to succeed academically 

in, and prepare financially for, postsecondary education.

 (g) Working to align State academic standards and curricula with 

the expectations of postsecondary institutions and employers.

 (h) Developing alternatives to traditional secondary school that 

give students a head start on attaining a recognized postsecondary 

credential (including an industry-recognized certificate, an 

apprenticeship, or an associate's or a bachelor's degree), including 

school designs that give students early exposure to college-level 

courses and experiences and allow students to earn transferable college 

credits or an associate's degree at the same time as a secondary school 

diploma.

 (i) Creating community college programs for individuals who have 

dropped out of high school that are personalized drop-out recovery 

programs, and that allow drop-outs to complete a secondary school 

diploma and begin college-level work.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-24)

0

138. New Sec. 694.24 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 694.24 What services may a GEAR UP project provide to students 

in their first year at an institution of higher education?

 Consistent with their approved applications and Sec. 694.20, a 

grantee may provide any services to students in their first year of 

attendance at an institution of higher education that will help those 

students succeed in school, and that do not duplicate services 

otherwise available to them. Examples of services that may be provided 

include--

 (a) Orientation services including introduction to on-campus 

services and resources;

 (b) On-going counseling to students either in person or though 

electronic or other means of correspondence;

 (c) Assistance with course selection for the second year of 

postsecondary education;

 (d) Assistance with choosing and declaring an academic major;

 (e) Assistance regarding academic, social, and personal areas of 

need;

 (f) Referrals to providers of appropriate services;

 (g) Tutoring, mentoring, and supplemental academic support;

[[Page 65803]]

 (h) Assistance with financial planning;

 (i) Career counseling and advising services; or

 (j) Advising students about transferring to other schools.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-24)

0
139. New Sec. 694.25 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 694.25 Are GEAR UP grantees required to provide services to 

students who were served under a previous GEAR UP grant?

 If a Partnership or State is awarded a GEAR UP grant on or after 

August 14, 2008 (i.e., initial grant), the grant ends before all 

students who received GEAR UP services under the grant have completed 

the twelfth grade, and the grantee receives a new award in a subsequent 

GEAR UP competition (i.e., new grant), the grantee must--

 (a) Continue to provide services required by or authorized under 

Sec. Sec. 694.21, 694.22, and 694.23 to all students who received GEAR 

UP services under the initial grant and remain enrolled in secondary 

schools until they complete the twelfth grade; and

 (b) Provide the services specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

by using Federal GEAR UP funds awarded for the new grant or funds from 

the non-Federal matching contribution required under the new grant.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21(b)(3)(B) and 1070a-22(d)(1)(C))

[FR Doc. 2010-24324 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P