[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13814-13907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4869]



[[Page 13813]]

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

Part II





Department of Education





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



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



High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant Program, 
the Federal TRIO Programs, and Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness 
for Undergraduate Program; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 13814]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

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

RIN 1840-AD01
[Docket ID ED-2010-OPE-0002]


High School Equivalency Program and College Assistance Migrant 
Program, the Federal TRIO Programs, and Gaining Early Awareness and 
Readiness for Undergraduate Program

AGENCIES: Office of Postsecondary Education and Office of Elementary 
and Secondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend current regulations, and 
establish new regulations, for the High School Equivalency Program and 
College Assistance Migrant Program (HEP and CAMP); the Federal TRIO 
programs (TRIO Programs--Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs 
(Training), Talent Search (TS), Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC), 
Upward Bound (UB), Student Support Services (SSS), and the Ronald E. 
McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair) Programs; and the Gaining 
Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program (GEAR UP) 
program.
    The purpose of HEP is to help migrant and seasonal farmworkers and 
their immediate family members obtain a general educational development 
(GED) credential, while CAMP assists students from this background to 
complete their first academic year of college and continue in 
postsecondary education. The Federal TRIO programs consist of five 
postsecondary educational opportunity outreach and support programs 
designed to motivate and assist low-income individuals, first-
generation college students, and individuals with disabilities to enter 
and complete secondary and postsecondary programs of study and enroll 
in graduate programs, and a training program for project staff working 
in one or more of the Federal TRIO programs. The purpose of the GEAR UP 
program is to increase the number of low-income students who are 
prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education.
    These proposed regulations are needed to implement provisions of 
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) by the Higher 
Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA) that relate to the HEP and 
CAMP, Federal TRIO, and GEAR UP programs.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only 
one time, in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies. 
In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information 
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency 
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on 
the site under ``How To Use This Site.''
    <bullet> Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you 
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address 
them to Pamela Maimer, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, 
NW., Room 8014, Washington, DC 20006-8014.

    Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments received from 
members of the public (including those comments submitted by mail, 
commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these submissions 
available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 
commenters should be careful to include in their comments only 
information that they wish to make publicly available on the 
Internet.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, Pamela J. 
Maimer, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 8014, 
Washington, DC 20006-8014. Telephone: (202) 502-7704 or via the 
Internet at: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5a0a3b373f363b74173b33373f281a3f3e743d352c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ce9eafa3aba2afe083afa7a3abbc8eabaae0a9a1b8">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f715e4b575e5111685a564c4c7f5a5b11585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f210e1b070e0141380a061c1c2f0a0b41080019">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#296f5b48474a4c5a076b4c5b4e4c5b4647694c4d074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d4b7f6c636e687e234f687f6a687f62634d6869236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f2b8939f9781dcb693849b81b29796dc959d84"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="783219151d0b563c190e110b381d1c561f170e">[email protected]</span></a>.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, call the 
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an 
accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to any of the contact persons listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation To Comment

    As outlined in the section of this notice entitled Negotiated 
Rulemaking, significant public participation, through six public 
hearings and three negotiated rulemaking sessions, has occurred in 
developing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). In accordance 
with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, the 
Department invites you to submit comments regarding these proposed 
regulations on or before April 22, 2010. To ensure that your comments 
have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to 
identify clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed 
regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your 
comments in the same order as the proposed regulations.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Order 12866, including its overall 
requirements to assess both the costs and the benefits of the proposed 
regulations and feasible alternatives, and to make a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of these proposed regulations justify 
their costs. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should 
take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while 
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the programs.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov. 
You may also inspect the comments, in person, in Room 8033, 1990 K 
Street, NW., Washington, DC between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 
p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal 
holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking 
Record

    On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or 
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs 
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public 
rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to 
schedule an appointment

[[Page 13815]]

for this type of aid, please contact one of the persons listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Negotiated Rulemaking

    Section 492 of the HEA requires the Secretary, before publishing 
any proposed regulations for programs authorized by Title IV of the 
HEA, to obtain public involvement in the development of the proposed 
regulations. After obtaining advice and recommendations from the 
public, including individuals and representatives of groups involved in 
the discretionary grant programs authorized under title IV of the HEA, 
the Secretary must subject the proposed regulations to a negotiated 
rulemaking process. All proposed regulations that the Department 
publishes on which the negotiators reached consensus must conform to 
final agreements resulting from that process unless the Secretary 
reopens the process or provides a written explanation to the 
participants stating why the Secretary has decided to depart from the 
agreements. Further information on the negotiated rulemaking process 
can be found at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html.
    On December 31, 2008, the Department published a notice in the 
Federal Register (73 FR 80314) announcing our intent to establish five 
negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare proposed regulations. One 
committee would focus on issues related to lender and general loan 
issues (Team I--Loans-Lender General Loan Issues). A second committee 
would focus on school-based loan issues (Team II--Loans-School-based 
Loan Issues). A third committee would focus on accreditation (Team 
III--Accreditation). A fourth committee would focus on discretionary 
grants (Team IV--Discretionary Grants). A fifth committee would focus 
on general and non-loan programmatic issues (Team V--General and Non-
Loan Programmatic Issues). The notice requested nominations of 
individuals for membership on the committees who could represent the 
interests of key stakeholder constituencies on each committee.
    This NPRM reflects the work of Team IV--Discretionary Grants (Team 
IV) which met to develop proposed regulations during the months of 
February through April, 2009. This NPRM proposes regulations relating 
to the administration of the HEP and CAMP, TRIO, and GEAR UP 
discretionary grants programs.
    The Department developed a list of proposed regulatory provisions 
based on the provisions contained in the HEOA and from advice and 
recommendations submitted by individuals and organizations as testimony 
to the Department in a series of six public hearings held on--
    <bullet> September 19, 2008, at the Texas Christian University, in 
Fort Worth, Texas;
    <bullet> September 29, 2008, at the University of Rhode Island, in 
Providence, Rhode Island;
    <bullet> October 2, 2008, at the Pepperdine University, in Malibu, 
California;
    <bullet> October 6, 2008, at Johnson C. Smith University, in 
Charlotte, North Carolina;
    <bullet> October 8, 2008, at the U.S. Department of Education, in 
Washington DC; and
    <bullet> October 15, 2008, at Cuyahoga Community College, in 
Warrensville Heights, Ohio.
    In addition, the Department accepted written comments on possible 
regulatory provisions submitted directly to the Department by 
interested parties and organizations. A summary of all comments 
received orally and in writing is posted as background material in the 
docket for this NPRM. Transcripts of the regional meetings can be 
accessed at http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html.
    Staff within the Department also identified additional issues for 
discussion and negotiation.
    At its first meeting, Team IV reached agreement on its protocols. 
These protocols provided that for each community of interest identified 
as having interests that were significantly affected by the subject 
matter of the negotiations, the non-Federal negotiators would represent 
the organizations listed after their names in the protocols in the 
negotiated rulemaking process.
    The Discretionary Grant Team IV Negotiated Rulemaking Committee 
included the following members:

Representing the TRIO Programs

    <bullet> David Megquier and Maureen Hoyler (alternate), Council for 
Opportunity in Education.
    <bullet> Charlene Manco and Larry Letourneau (alternate), National 
Educational Opportunities Association.
    <bullet> Laura Qaissaunee and R. Renee Hampton (alternate), 
American Association of Community Colleges.
    <bullet> Jon Westby, Minneapolis Community and Technical College 
and Mike Henry, Southwest Virginia Community College (alternate), 
representing TRIO two-year institutions.
    <bullet> Deltha Q. Colvin, The Wichita State University and Troy 
Johnson, University of North Texas (alternate), representing TRIO four-
year institutions.
    <bullet> Brenda Dann-Messier, Dorcas Place Adult & Family Learning 
Center, representing TRIO community organizations.

Representing the GEAR UP Program

    <bullet> Teena L. Olszewski, Northern Arizona University, Allison 
G. Jones, The California State University, and Weiya Liang, Washington 
Higher Education Coordinating Board (alternate), representing GEAR UP 
four-year institutions.
    <bullet> Louis Niro, Cuyahoga Community College, representing GEAR 
UP two-year institutions.
    <bullet> Jennifer Martin and Karen McCarthy (alternate), National 
Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators.
    <bullet> Linda Shiller, Vermont Student Assistance Corporation 
representing GEAR UP State grantees.

Representing the HEP and CAMP Programs

    <bullet> Arturo Martinez and Javier Gonzalez (alternate), The 
National HEP/CAMP Association.

Representing Students

    <bullet> Cedric Lawson, United Council of University of Wisconsin, 
and Gregory A. Cendana (alternate), United States Student Association.

Representing the Federal Government

    <bullet> Lynn Mahaffie, U.S. Department of Education.
    Team IV's protocols also provided that, unless agreed to otherwise, 
consensus on all of the amendments in the proposed regulations had to 
be achieved for consensus to be reached on the entire NPRM. Consensus 
means that there must be no dissent by any member.
    During the meetings, Team IV reviewed and discussed drafts of 
proposed regulations. At the final meeting in April 2009, the team 
reached tentative agreement on the proposed regulations for the HEP, 
CAMP and GEAR UP programs as well as on many of the proposed TRIO 
program regulations. However, some non-Federal negotiators did not 
agree to the Department's proposed regulations relating to the use of 
Talent Search grants to pay tuition for students to take courses and 
the proposed regulations to implement the new statutory requirement for 
a second review of unsuccessful applications for TRIO grants. Because 
the committee did not agree on the proposed regulations for the TRIO 
programs, Team IV did not reach consensus on the proposed regulations 
in this NPRM.

[[Page 13816]]

    We propose to accept changes that reflect the tentative agreements 
made in the negotiation sessions for the HEP, CAMP, and GEAR UP 
programs in their entirety. In the TRIO proposed regulations, we 
accepted many of the changes tentatively agreed to in the negotiation 
sessions.
    More information on the work of Team IV can be found at http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2009/grants.html.

Summary of Proposed Changes

    These proposed regulations would implement changes made by the HEOA 
to discretionary grant programs authorized by title IV of the HEA, 
including:

HEP and CAMP Programs

    <bullet> Expanding eligibility for HEP and CAMP to allow students 
to qualify for the program through their own qualifying work, or that 
of an immediate family member, rather than only through their own work 
or that of a parent, as the statute previously held (see section 
418A(b)(B)(i) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Defining the term immediate family member to include only 
individuals who are dependent upon a migrant or seasonal farmworker 
(see section 418A(b)(B)(i) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Revising the definition of the term seasonal farmworker to 
clarify that the individual's primary employment in migrant and 
seasonal farmwork must occur for at least 75 days within the past 24 
months (see section 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Amending the authorized HEP services section to (1) 
Provide that permissible HEP services include preparation for college 
entrance examinations; (2) provide that permissible HEP services 
include all stipends--not only weekly stipends--for HEP participants; 
(3) add transportation and child care as examples of essential 
supportive services; and (4) specify that HEP services include other 
activities to improve persistence and retention in postsecondary 
education (see section 418A(b) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Amending the authorized CAMP services section to specify 
that (1) Permissible CAMP services include supportive and instructional 
services to improve placement, persistence, and retention in 
postsecondary education; (2) these supportive services include 
personal, academic, career, economic education, or personal finance 
counseling as an ongoing part of the program, and (3)permissible CAMP 
services include internships (see section 418A(c)(1) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Amending the follow-up CAMP services section to include 
(1) referring CAMP students to on-campus or off-campus providers of 
counseling services, academic assistance, or financial aid, and 
coordinating those services, assistance, and aid with other non-program 
services, assistance, and aid, including services, assistance, and aid 
provided by community-based organizations, which may include mentoring 
and guidance, and (2) for students attending two-year institutions of 
higher education, encouraging the students to transfer to four-year 
institutions of higher education, where appropriate, and monitoring the 
rate of transfer of these students (see section 418A(c)(2) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Amending the minimum allocation for HEP and CAMP grants to 
provide that the Secretary must not allocate an amount less than 
$180,000 (see section 418A(e) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Adding to the HEP and CAMP program regulations the 
criteria the Department considers in evaluating prior experience (see 
section 418A(f) of the HEA).

Federal TRIO Programs

    The HEOA made a number of significant changes to the Federal TRIO 
programs that necessitate changes to the current regulations. The 
statutory changes to the TRIO programs include:
    <bullet> Amending or adding definitions for different campus and 
different population, which change current regulatory definitions of 
these terms for the SSS program and current practice with regard to the 
number of applications an eligible entity may submit under each of the 
TRIO programs (see section 402A(h)(1) and (h)(2) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Amending the services or activities that projects funded 
under the Federal TRIO programs must provide and services or activities 
that these projects may provide (see section 402B(b) and (c) (TS); 
section 402C(b), (c) and (d) (UB); section 402D(b) and (c) (SSS); 
section 402E(b) and (c) (McNair); section 402F(b) (EOC); and section 
402G(b) (Training) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Adding new categories of participants (foster care youth 
and homeless children and youth) for whom projects funded under these 
programs are to provide services (see section 402A(e)(3) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Adding new outcome criteria for most of the TRIO programs 
(except for the Training program) which the Secretary must use for 
prior experience determinations: TS (see section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the 
HEA); UB (see section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA); SSS (see section 
402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA); McNair (see section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the 
HEA); and EOC (see section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Specifying a new procedure for handling unsuccessful 
applications using a two-stage process (see section 402A(c)(8)(C) of 
the HEA).
    <bullet> Revising definitions for some terms and adding new 
regulatory definitions to implement amendments to the HEA by the HEOA:
    <bullet> Financial and economic literacy (see section 402B(b)(6) of 
the HEA (TS), section 402C(b)(6) of the HEA (UB), section 402D(b)(4) of 
the HEA (SSS), section 402E(c)(1) of the HEA (McNair)), and section 
402F(b)(5) of the HEA (EOC));
    <bullet> Foster care youth and homeless children and youth (see 
sections 402A(e)(3), 402B(c)(7) (TS), 402C(d)(7) (UB), 402D(a)(3) and 
(c)(6) (SSS), 402F(b)(11) (EOC), and 402G(b)(5) of the HEA (Training)).
    <bullet> Graduate center (see sections 101 and 102 of the HEA and 
section 402E(d)(2)of the HEA); groups underrepresented in graduate 
school (see section 402E(d)(2) of the HEA); and research and scholarly 
activities (see section 402E(b)of the HEA (McNair)).
    <bullet> Individual with disabilities (see sections 402B(c)(7) 
(TS), 402C(d)(7) (UB), 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6) (SSS), 402F(b)(11) (EOC), 
and 402G(b)(5) of the HEA (Training)).
    <bullet> Individual who has a high risk for academic failure and 
veteran who has a high risk for academic failure (see sections 
402A(f)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv) and 402C(e)(2) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Institution of higher education (see sections 101 and 102 
of the HEA (All Federal TRIO programs)).
    <bullet> Regular secondary school diploma and rigorous secondary 
school program of study (see sections 402A(f)(3)(A)(iii) and (iv) and 
402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA (TS and UB)).
    <bullet> Veteran (see section 402A(h)(5) of the HEA (TS, EOC, and 
UB)).
    Additionally, the regulations for the TRIO programs need to be 
amended to reflect other changes made by the HEOA, other amendments to 
the HEA, and established administrative practices. These changes 
include the following:
    <bullet> Amending the project period for the TRIO programs. The 
proposed regulations would define the project period as five years for 
TS, UB, SSS, McNair, and two years for TRIO Training (see section 
402A(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Revising the selection criteria related to ``Objectives'' 
for the following TRIO pre-college and college programs:

[[Page 13817]]

TS (see section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA); UB (see section 
402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA); SSS (see section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA); 
McNair (see section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA); and EOC (see section 
402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Removing the minimum number of participants in the 
regulations for TS, EOC, UB, Upward Bound Math and Science, and 
Veterans Upward Bound projects (see sections 402A(f), 402A (b)(3), 
402B, 402C, 402F of the HEA). For each grant competition, the 
Department will establish minimum numbers of participants to be served 
by a grantee through the Federal Register notice inviting application.
    <bullet> Revising sections of the TRIO Training regulations to 
reflect current law and practice regarding: (1) The need for the 
project selection criteria and the process for ranking applications by 
priority; (2) the use of prior experience points in the ranking of 
applications for funding; and (3) the number of prior experience points 
that can be earned (see section 402G(2) of the HEA).

GEAR UP

    <bullet> Providing that the Secretary award competitive preference 
priority points to an eligible applicant for a State GEAR UP grant that 
has both carried out a successful State GEAR UP grant prior to August 
14, 2008, and prior, demonstrated commitment to early intervention 
leading to college access through collaboration and replication of 
successful strategies; and specifying how the Department determines 
whether a State GEAR UP grant has been ``successful'' (see section 
404A(b)(3) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Explaining when a GEAR UP grantee is allowed to provide 
services to students attending an institution of higher education (see 
section 404A(b)(2) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Requiring grantees that continue to provide services to 
students through their first year of attendance at an institution of 
higher education, to the extent practicable, to coordinate with other 
campus programs in order not to duplicate services (see section 
404A(b)(2) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Revising the matching requirement to require that a GEAR 
UP grantee make substantial progress towards meeting the matching 
percentage stated in its approved application for each year of the 
project period. Grantees would no longer be required to meet the 
matching requirement each year of the project period (section 
404C(b)(1) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Revising the regulations concerning the matching 
requirement for Partnerships by: (1) Providing authority for the 
Secretary to waive up to 50 to 75 percent of the matching requirement 
for up to two years under certain circumstances; and (2) creating a 
multiple-tiered system for different types of waiver requests (see 
section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Providing for tentative approval of a Partnership 
applicant's request for a 50-percent waiver for the entire project 
period so that a Partnership applicant that meets the conditions for 
such a waiver has an opportunity to apply for a grant without needing 
to identify additional sources of match funding in the later years of 
the project period (see section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Adding a list of required and allowable activities and 
separating these required and allowable activities into multiple 
regulatory sections (see section 404D of the HEA).
    <bullet> Specifying that GEAR UP grantees may provide activities 
that support participating students to develop graduation and career 
plans and that these graduation and career plans may include career 
awareness and planning activities as they relate to a rigorous academic 
curriculum (see section 404D(b)(5)(D) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Clarifying that GEAR UP funds may be used to support the 
costs of administering a scholarship program as well as the costs of 
the scholarships themselves (see sections 404E(a)(1) and 404D(b)(7) of 
the HEA).
    <bullet> Describing the types of services that a grantee may 
provide to students in their first year of attendance at an institution 
of higher education and listing examples of these services (see section 
404D of the HEA).
    <bullet> Specifying the minimum amount of scholarship funding for 
an eligible student, and providing that the State or Partnership 
awarding the GEAR UP scholarship may reduce the scholarship amount if 
an eligible student who is awarded a GEAR UP scholarship attends an 
institution of higher education on a less than full-time basis during 
any award year (see section 404E(d) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Incorporating the statutory definition of the term 
eligible student (from section 404E(g) of the HEA) in the program 
regulations.
    <bullet> Specifying the amount of funds that State grantees that do 
not receive a waiver of the requirement that States must expend at 
least 50 percent of their GEAR UP funding on scholarships must hold in 
reserve for scholarships and how States must use these funds (see 
section 404E(e) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Clarifying that scholarships must be made to all students 
who are eligible under the definition in Sec.  694.12(b) and that a 
grantee may not impose additional eligibility criteria that would have 
the effect of limiting or denying a scholarship to an eligible student 
(see section 404E(e) and (g) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Requiring States awarding scholarships to provide 
information on the eligibility requirements for the scholarships to all 
participating students upon the students' entry into the GEAR UP 
program (see section 404E(c) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Requiring States to provide scholarship funds to all 
eligible students who attend an institution of higher education in the 
State, and allowing States to provide these scholarship funds to 
eligible students who attend institutions of higher education outside 
the State (see section 404E(e) and (g) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Specifying that a State or Partnership may award 
continuation scholarships in successive award years to each student who 
received an initial scholarship and who is enrolled or accepted for 
enrollment in a program of undergraduate instruction at an institution 
of higher education (see section 404E of the HEA).
    <bullet> Providing that a GEAR UP Partnership that does not 
participate in the GEAR UP scholarship component may provide financial 
assistance for postsecondary education using non-Federal funds obtained 
to comply with the program's matching requirement (see section 404C(b) 
of the HEA).
    <bullet> Specifying the requirements for the return of scholarship 
funds. Specifically, (1) Providing that scholarship funds held in 
reserve by States under Sec. Sec.  694.12 (b)(1) or 694.12(c) or by 
Partnerships under section 404D(b)(7) of the HEA that are not used by 
an eligible student within six years of the student's scheduled 
completion of secondary school may be redistributed by the grantee to 
other eligible students; (2) requiring the return of remaining Federal 
funds within 45 days after the six-year period for expending the 
scholarship funds expires; (3) requiring grantees to annually furnish 
information, as the Secretary may require, on the amount of Federal and 
non-Federal funds reserved and held for GEAR UP scholarships and the 
disbursement of those funds to eligible students until these funds are 
fully expended or returned to the Secretary; and (4) providing that a 
scholarship fund under the GEAR UP program is subject to audit or 
monitoring by authorized representatives of the Secretary throughout 
the life of the fund (see section 404E(e)(4) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Requiring grantees that receive initial grant awards after 
the passage of

[[Page 13818]]

the HEOA must continue to serve students from a previous grant received 
by the grantee (see sec 404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Clarifying whom a grantee must serve if not all students 
in the cohort attend the same school after the cohort completes the 
last grade level offered by the school at which the cohort began to 
receive GEAR UP services (see section 404B(d) of the HEA).
    <bullet> Specifying that 21st Century Scholarship Certificates are 
to be provided by the grantees (rather than by the Secretary to the 
grantees), and must indicate the estimated amount.

Significant Proposed Regulations

    We group major issues according to subject, with appropriate 
sections of the proposed regulations referenced in parentheses.

Part 206--Special Educational Programs for Students Whose Families Are 
Engaged in Migrant and Other Seasonal Farmwork--High School Equivalency 
Program and College Assistance Migrant Program

HEP and CAMP Eligibility

    Statute: Sections 408(1)(A) and 408(2)(A)(i)(I) of the HEOA amend 
sections 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) and 418A(c)(1)(A) of the HEA, respectively, 
to expand the pool of individuals who may receive HEP and CAMP services 
from persons who themselves, or whose parents, have spent a minimum of 
75 days during the past 24 months in migrant and seasonal farmwork, to 
persons who themselves or whose immediate family have performed such 
work. The statute does not define the term ``immediate family.''
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  206.3 specifies who is eligible 
to participate in a HEP or CAMP project. It does not reflect the 
changes made by the HEOA to the HEP and CAMP eligibility requirements.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise current Sec.  
206.3(a)(1) to specify that in order to be eligible to participate in a 
HEP or CAMP project a person, or his or her immediate family member, 
must have spent a minimum of 75 days during the past 24 months as a 
migrant or seasonal farmworker. Current Sec.  206.3(a)(2), regarding 
alternative eligibility for HEP and CAMP on the basis of eligibility 
under the Migrant Education Program authorized under subpart C of Title 
I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (MEP) or the National 
Farmworkers Jobs Program authorized in section 167 of the Workforce 
Investment Act of 1998 (NFJP), would remain unchanged except for 
updating the reference to the MEP regulations to 34 CFR part 200.
    We also are proposing to add to the list of definitions in current 
Sec.  206.5 (What definitions apply to these programs?) a definition of 
the term immediate family member. Specifically, we would redesignate 
current Sec.  206.5(c)(5), (c)(6), and (c)(7) as proposed Sec.  
206.5(c)(6), (c)(7), and (c)(8), respectively, and then add a new 
paragraph (c)(5) to define the term immediate family member as one or 
more of the following: a spouse; a parent, step-parent, adoptive 
parent, foster parent, or anyone with guardianship; or any person who 
(1) claims the individual as a dependent on a Federal income tax return 
for either of the previous two years, or (2) resides in the same 
household as the individual, supports that individual financially, and 
is a relative of that individual.
    Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec.  206.3(a) to 
specify that in order to be eligible to participate in a HEP or CAMP 
project a person, or his or her immediate family member, must have 
spent a minimum of 75 days during the past 24 months as a migrant or 
seasonal farmworker. This proposed regulatory change would reflect the 
changes made to sections 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) and 418A(c)(1)(A) of the HEA 
by sections 408(1)(A) and 408(2)(A)(i)(I) of the HEOA, respectively. We 
propose to use the term immediate family member in Sec.  206.3(a), 
rather than the statutory term ``immediate family,'' for clarity.
    During our negotiated rulemaking sessions, the Department and non-
Federal negotiators agreed that defining the term immediate family 
member in these regulations would help ensure consistency in the 
application of this term across HEP and CAMP projects. In developing a 
proposed definition for this term, the Department considered examples 
of similar definitions used by other government programs, as well as 
the comments of the non-Federal negotiators and previous discussions 
with stakeholders in the HEP and CAMP community. Most importantly, the 
Department agreed with the non-Federal negotiators that it is important 
to ensure that eligibility for the HEP and CAMP programs extends only 
to an individual who is, or is dependent upon, a migrant or seasonal 
farmworker, and defined the term immediate family member accordingly.
    Finally, we are proposing to revise current Sec.  206.3(a)(2) to 
update the regulatory cross-reference regarding the MEP, which appears 
in 34 CFR part 200, subpart C, not 34 CFR part 201.

HEP and CAMP Definition of Seasonal Farmworker

    Statute: Sections 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) and 418A(c)(1)(A) of the HEA 
provide that the services authorized for HEP and CAMP include services 
to reach persons who themselves have spent, or whose immediate family 
have spent, a minimum of 75 days during the past 24 months in migrant 
and seasonal farmwork.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  206.5(c)(7) defines seasonal 
farmworker as a person who, within the past 24 months, was employed for 
at least 75 days in farmwork, and whose primary employment was in 
farmwork on a temporary or seasonal basis (that is, not a constant 
year-round activity). This definition does not define when and for how 
long the ``primary employment'' must occur.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend newly redesignated 
Sec.  206.5(c)(8) (current Sec.  206.5(c)(7)) to clarify that the term 
seasonal farmworker means a person whose primary employment was in 
farmwork on a temporary or seasonal basis (that is, not a constant 
year-round activity) for a period of at least 75 days within the past 
24 months.
    Reasons: The Department believes that the current definition of 
seasonal farmworker should be revised to clarify that the ``primary 
employment'' in migrant and seasonal farmwork must occur for at least 
75 days within the past 24 months. While this was the intended meaning 
of the term in current Sec.  206.5(c)(7), the Department is concerned 
that some have interpreted or may interpret the current definition to 
require that a seasonal worker not only have been employed for at least 
75 days over the past 24 months in farmwork, but that the person's 
primary employment over that entire 24 months have been in farmwork. 
Because we do not believe this to be required, we propose to clarify 
the term seasonal farmworker and to ensure consistency in its 
application across HEP and CAMP projects.

Regulations That Apply to HEP and CAMP

    Statute: None.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  206.4 lists the regulations that 
apply to HEP and CAMP. The list of applicable regulations in this 
section was last updated in 1993.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  206.4 to add 
four regulations to the list of regulations that apply to HEP and CAMP. 
Specifically, we are proposing to (1) add 34 CFR part

[[Page 13819]]

84 (Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial 
Assistance)); 34 CFR part 97 (Protection of Human Subjects); 34 CFR 
part 98 (Student Rights in Research Experimental Programs, and Testing) 
for HEP only; and 34 CFR part 99 (Family Educational Rights and 
Privacy) to this list, and (2) redesignate two paragraphs in this 
section.
    Reasons: We are proposing to add these four regulations to the list 
of applicable regulations so that the list of regulations that apply to 
HEP and CAMP is complete and accurate. In order to maintain this list 
of applicable regulations in numerical order, we propose to redesignate 
Sec.  206.4(a)(6) and (a)(7) as Sec.  206.4(a)(7) and Sec.  
206.4(a)(8), respectively.

HEP Services

    Statute: Section 408(1)(B) through (1)(F) of the HEOA amended 
section 418A(b) of the HEA to (1) authorize as a HEP service 
preparation for college entrance examinations, and activities beyond 
those otherwise identified to improve persistence and retention in 
postsecondary education (see sections 418A(b)(3)(B) and 418A(b)(9) of 
the HEA, respectively); (2) add transportation and child care as 
examples of essential supportive services (see section 418A(b)(8) of 
the HEA); and (3) remove the limitation that stipends provided to HEP 
participants be ``weekly'' (see section 418A(b)(5) of the HEA).
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  206.10(b)(1) specifies the types 
of services that HEP projects may provide. It does not reflect the 
changes made to the HEA by the HEOA.
    Proposed Regulations: Consistent with the statutory changes made to 
section 418A(b) of the HEA, we are proposing to amend (1) Sec.  
206.10(b)(1)(iii)(B) to provide that permissible HEP services include 
preparation for college entrance examinations; (2) Sec.  
206.10(b)(1)(v) to provide that permissible HEP services include 
stipends--not only weekly stipends--for HEP participants; (3) Sec.  
206.10(b)(1)(viii) to add transportation and child care as examples of 
essential supportive services; and (4) Sec.  206.10(b)(1)(ix) to 
specify that HEP services include other activities to improve 
persistence and retention in postsecondary education.
    Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec.  206.10(b)(1) to 
reflect the changes in the HEP services authorized under the HEA, as 
amended by section 408(1) of the HEOA.

CAMP Services

    Statute: Section 408(2) of the HEOA amended section 418A(c) of the 
HEA to provide that CAMP supportive and instructional services are to 
improve placement, persistence, and retention in postsecondary 
education (see section 418A(c)(1)(B) of the HEA) and that these 
supportive services include, as an ongoing part of the program, not 
only personal, academic, and career counseling, but economic education 
or personal finance counseling as well (see section 418A(c)(1)(B)(i) of 
the HEA). Section 408(2) of the HEOA also amended section 418A(c) of 
the HEA to authorize internships as a CAMP service (see section 
418A(c)(1)(F) of the HEA), and to provide both that other supportive 
services provided as necessary to ensure the success of eligible 
students must be ``essential'', and that examples of such essential 
supportive services are transportation and child care (see section 
418A(c)(1)(G) of the HEA).
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  206.10(b)(2) specifies the types 
of services that CAMP projects may provide. It does not reflect the 
changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: Consistent with the statutory changes made to 
section 418A(c) of the HEA, we are proposing to amend (1) Sec.  
206.10(b)(2)(ii) to specify that the permissible CAMP supportive and 
instructional services are to improve placement, persistence, and 
retention in postsecondary education; and (2) Sec.  206.10(b)(2)(ii)(A) 
to specify that these supportive services include, as an ongoing part 
of the program, economic education, or personal finance counseling as 
well as the previously authorized personal, academic, and career 
services. We also propose to redesignate Sec.  206.10(b)(2)(vi) as 
Sec.  206.10(b)(2)(vii), and to add a new Sec.  206.10(b)(2)(vi) to 
clarify that permissible CAMP services include internships. We propose 
to amend newly redesignated Sec.  206.10(b)(2)(vii) to add 
transportation and child care as examples of what now must be 
``essential'' supportive service.
    Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec.  206.10(b)(2) to 
reflect the changes made to permissible CAMP services in section 
418A(c) of the HEA by section 408A(2) of the HEOA.

Follow-Up CAMP Services

    Statute: Section 408A(2)(B) of the HEOA amended section 418A(c)(2) 
of the HEA to provide that in addition to previously authorized 
referrals of CAMP students to on- or off-campus providers of counseling 
services, academic assistance, or financial aid, follow-up services to 
CAMP students may include (1) the coordination of such services, 
assistance, and aid with other non-program services, assistance, and 
aid, including services, assistance, and aid provided by community-
based organizations, which may include mentoring and guidance; and (2) 
for students attending two-year IHEs, encouraging the students to 
transfer to four-year IHEs where appropriate, and monitoring the rate 
of transfer of these students.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  206.11 specifies the types of 
services that CAMP projects must provide. Under current Sec.  
206.11(a), CAMP projects must provide ``follow-up services'' for 
project participants after they have completed their first year of 
college. Current Sec.  206.11(b) provides a list of what ``follow-up 
services'' may include.
    Proposed Regulations: Consistent with the statutory changes made to 
section 418A(c)(2) of the HEA, we are proposing to amend Sec.  206.11 
to provide that follow-up CAMP services may include (1) in addition to 
the previously authorized referrals of CAMP students to on- or off-
campus providers of counseling services, academic assistance, or 
financial aid, the coordination of those services, assistance, and aid 
with other non-program services, assistance, and aid, including 
services, assistance, and aid provided by community-based 
organizations, which may include mentoring and guidance, and (2) for 
students attending two-year IHEs, encouraging the students to transfer 
to four-year IHEs, where appropriate, and monitoring the rate of 
transfer of these students.
    Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec.  206.11 to reflect 
the changes made to mandatory CAMP services in section 418A(c)(2)(B) 
and (c)(2)(C) of the HEA by section 408A(2)(B) of the HEOA.

Minimum Allocations

    Statute: Section 418A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 408A(4) 
of the HEOA, increases from $150,000 to $180,000 the minimum amount of 
any allocation the Secretary makes for any HEP or CAMP project.
    Current Regulations: Consistent with prior law, current Sec.  
206.20(b)(2) requires each applicant for a HEP or CAMP award to include 
an annual budget of no less than $150,000.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  206.20(b)(2) 
to provide that in applying for a HEP or CAMP grant, an applicant's 
grant

[[Page 13820]]

application must include an annual budget of not less than $180,000.
    Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec.  206.20(b)(2) to 
reflect the changes made to minimum allocations for HEP and CAMP in 
section 418A(f) of the HEA by section 408A(4) of the HEOA.

Prior Experience Points for HEP and CAMP Service Delivery

    Statute: Section 418A(e) of the HEA, as amended by section 408A(3) 
of the HEOA, provides that in making HEP and CAMP grants, the 
Department must consider an applicant's prior experience of service 
delivery under the particular project for which it seeks further 
funding, and must give this prior experience the same level of 
consideration it gives to the prior experience of applicants for TRIO 
grants.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: The Department is proposing to add a new 
Sec.  206.31(a) to provide that in the case of an applicant for a HEP 
award, the Secretary considers the applicant's experience in 
implementing an expiring HEP project with respect to (1) whether the 
applicant served the number of participants described in its approved 
application; (2) the extent to which the applicant met or exceeded its 
funded objectives with regard to project participants, including the 
targeted number and percentage of (i) participants who received a 
general educational development (GED) credential; and (ii) GED 
credential recipients who were reported as entering postsecondary 
education programs, career positions, or the military; and (3) the 
extent to which the applicant met the administrative requirements, 
including recordkeeping, reporting, and financial accountability under 
the terms of the previously funded award.
    We also are proposing to add a new Sec.  206.31(b) to provide that 
in the case of an applicant for a CAMP award, the Secretary considers 
the applicant's experience in implementing an expiring CAMP project 
with respect to (1) Whether the applicant served the number of 
participants described in its approved application; (2) the extent to 
which the applicant met or exceeded its funded objectives with regard 
to project participants, including the targeted number and percentage 
of participants who (i) successfully completed the first year of 
college; and (ii) continued to be enrolled in postsecondary education 
after completing their first year of college; and (3) the extent to 
which the applicant met the administrative requirements, including 
recordkeeping, reporting, and financial accountability under the terms 
of the previously funded award.
    Reasons: The Department proposes adding to the HEP and CAMP program 
regulations the specific criteria we would consider in evaluating prior 
experience in order to be consistent with the Department's approach in 
TRIO. The criteria for evaluating prior experience that we specify in 
proposed Sec.  206.31 is based on the language in previously approved 
application packages for HEP and CAMP. The non-Federal negotiators 
agreed with this approach and reached tentative agreement on this 
issue.

    Note: The TRIO programs have had a longstanding requirement that 
only applicants with an expiring TRIO project are eligible for the 
priority for prior experience. Consequently, in providing the same 
degree of consideration for prior experience as provided under the 
Federal TRIO programs, we view this aspect of proposed Sec.  
206.31(a) to be statutorily required.

Federal TRIO Programs--34 CFR Parts 642 (Training Program for Federal 
TRIO Programs), 643 (Talent Search), 644 (Educational Opportunity 
Centers), 645 (Upward Bound Program), 646 (Student Support Services 
Program), 647 (Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program)

    Section 403(a) of the HEOA has amended section 402A of the HEA to 
include a number of new requirements that apply across the Federal TRIO 
programs (i.e., the Talent Search (TS), Upward Bound (UB), Student 
Support Services (SSS), Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement 
(McNair), Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC), and Staff Development 
Activities (Training) programs). Additionally, section 403(b) through 
(g) of the HEOA amended sections 402B, 402C, 402D, 402E, 402F, and 
402G, to make specific changes to the TS, UB, SSS, McNair, EOC, and 
Training programs, respectively.
    Because a number of the statutory changes made to the HEA by the 
HEOA affect multiple Federal TRIO programs similarly, we have organized 
the discussion of proposed changes to the Federal TRIO program 
regulations by first addressing crosscutting issues by subject matter 
and then discussing program-specific issues on a program-by-program 
basis. We group the crosscutting issues as follows:
    <bullet> Number of Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit to 
Serve Different Campuses and Different Populations.
    <bullet> Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO 
program.
    <bullet> Evaluating Prior Experience--Outcome Criteria.
    <bullet> Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program 
Applicants.
    Our discussion of issues applicable to specific programs follows 
the order of the Department's regulations for those programs (i.e., 34 
CFR parts 642 (Training), 643 (TS), 644 (EOC), 645 (UB), 646 (SSS), and 
647 (McNair)).

Number of Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit To Serve Different 
Campuses and Different Populations

    Statute: Section 402A(c)(5) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(2)(C) of the HEOA, provides that the Secretary may not limit the 
number of applications submitted by an eligible entity under any 
Federal TRIO program if the additional applications describe programs 
serving different populations or different campuses. The HEOA changed 
section 402A(c)(5) of the HEA by replacing the term ``campuses'' with 
the term ``different campuses''.
    More significantly, section 403(a)(6) of the HEOA amended section 
402A(h) of the HEA by adding definitions for the terms ``different 
campus'' and ``different population''. Section 402A(h)(1) of the HEA 
defines the term ``different campus'' as a site of an institution of 
higher education that is geographically apart from the main campus, is 
permanent in nature, and offers courses in educational programs leading 
to a degree, certificate, or other recognized educational credential.
    Section 402A(h)(2) of the HEA defines the term ``different 
population'' as a group of individuals that an eligible entity desires 
to serve using a Federal TRIO grant and that is separate and distinct 
from any other population that the entity has applied to serve, or a 
population that, while sharing some of the same needs as another 
population, has distinct needs for specialized services.
    Current Regulations: Only two of the Federal TRIO programs, the UB 
and SSS programs, have regulations that address the number of grant 
applications an eligible entity may submit.
    For the UB program, current Sec.  645.20(a) provides that the 
Secretary will accept more than one application from an eligible entity 
as long as any additional application describes a project that serves a 
different participant population. The current regulations for the UB 
program do not define the term ``different participant population''.
    For the SSS program, current Sec.  646.10 provides that the 
Secretary accepts more than one application from an eligible

[[Page 13821]]

applicant so long as each additional application describes a project 
that serves a different campus, or a different population of 
participants who cannot readily be served by a single project.
    Current Sec.  646.7 defines the terms different campus and 
different population of participants for purposes of the SSS program. 
Current Sec.  646.7 defines different campus as an institutional site 
that is geographically apart from and independent of the main campus of 
the institution. The location of an institution is ``independent of the 
main campus'' if it is: Permanent in nature; offers courses in 
educational programs leading to a degree, certificate, or other 
recognized credential; has its own faculty and administrative or 
supervisory organization; or has its own budgetary authority. Current 
Sec.  646.7 defines different population of participants as a group of 
(1) low-income, first-generation college students, or (2) disabled 
students.
    While the current regulations for the TS, EOC, and UB programs do 
not specifically address the number of applications an eligible entity 
may submit or define the terms ``different population'' or ``different 
campus'', these regulations do provide that the Secretary will consider 
the ``target area'' (for the TS, EOC, and UB programs) or ``target 
school'' (for the TS and UB programs) proposed to be served by the 
project when selecting applications (see current Sec. Sec.  643.21, 
644.21, 645.30 and 645.31). Current Sec. Sec.  643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) 
(EOC), and 645.6(b) (UB) generally define the term target area as a 
geographic area served by a project. Current Sec. Sec.  643.7(b) (TS) 
and 645.6(b) (UB) define the term target school as ``a school 
designated by the applicant as a focus of project services''.
    Proposed Regulations: To reflect the new statutory definitions for 
the terms different campus and different population in section 402A(h) 
of the HEA, we are proposing to amend the definitions sections of the 
applicable Federal TRIO program regulations to incorporate the 
statutory definitions of these terms. Specifically, we propose to add 
the definition of different population to current Sec. Sec.  643.7(b) 
(TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), and 647.7(b) (McNair). We also 
propose to add the definition of different campus to Sec.  647.7 
(McNair). For the SSS program, we propose to amend Sec.  646.7 by 
revising the definition of the term different campus and by replacing 
the definition of the term different population of participants with 
the statutory term different population.
    To implement section 402A(c)(5) of the HEA, which provides that the 
Secretary may not limit the number of applications submitted by an 
eligible entity if the additional applications describe programs 
serving different populations or different campuses, we propose to 
amend each of the Federal TRIO program regulations to clarify when an 
eligible applicant may submit more than one application. Specifically: 
For the Training program, we propose to add a new Sec.  642.7 to 
provide that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application 
for a Training grant as long as each application describes a project 
that addresses a different absolute priority that is designated in the 
Federal Register notice inviting applications.
    For the TS program, we propose to add a new Sec.  643.10(a) to 
provide that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application 
for TS grants as long as each application describes a project that 
serves a different target area or target schools, or another designated 
different population.
    For the EOC program, we propose to add a new Sec.  644.10(a) to 
provide that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application 
for EOC grants as long as each application describes a project that 
serves a different target area or another designated different 
population.
    For the UB program, we propose to revise Sec.  645.20(a) to provide 
that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application as long 
as each application describes a project that serves a different target 
area or target school or another designated different population.
    For the SSS program, we propose to revise Sec.  646.10(a) to 
provide that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application 
as long as each application describes a project that serves a different 
campus or a designated different population.
    For the McNair program, we propose to add a new Sec.  647.10(a) to 
provide that an eligible applicant may submit more than one application 
as long as each application describes a project that serves a different 
campus or a designated different population.
    In addition, for the TS, EOC, UB, SSS, and McNair programs, we 
propose to add regulatory language that provides that, for each 
competition, the Secretary designates, in the Federal Register notice 
inviting applications and other published application materials for the 
competition, the different populations for which an eligible entity may 
submit a separate application (see proposed Sec. Sec.  643.10(b), 
644.10(b), 645.20(b), 646.10(b), and 647.10(b), respectively).
    Reasons: During the negotiated rulemaking sessions, the negotiators 
discussed whether the new definitions of the terms different campus and 
different population should apply only to the SSS program (where these 
terms are currently used) or to all of the Federal TRIO programs. The 
current regulations for the Federal TRIO programs are reflect the fact 
that the concept of a different campus is only relevant for the SSS and 
McNair programs, which serve college students. The TS, EOC, and UB 
programs are pre-college programs that do not necessarily target 
different campuses. In addition, for the TS, EOC, and UB programs, the 
traditional administrative practice has been to focus on different 
populations of students by identifying where those students live 
(target area) or where they attend school (target schools).
    Some non-Federal negotiators recommended that the Department 
continue its current practice and only apply the new definitions of 
different campus and different population to the SSS program. Other 
non-Federal negotiators disagreed, noting that the HEA now allows 
applicants applying under both the pre-college programs (TS, EOC, and 
UB) and the college programs (SSS and McNair) to submit separate 
applications to serve different populations of students. We agree that 
the HEA allows applicants under the TS, EOC, UB, SSS and McNair 
programs to submit more than one application as long as each 
application proposes to serve a different population.
    For this reason, we are proposing to amend the regulations for the 
TS, EOC, UB, SSS and McNair programs to incorporate the statutorily 
defined term different population. We propose to use this term in 
conjunction with the terms target area and target school from the 
current regulations for TS, EOC, and UB. By clarifying that applicants 
can submit more than one application if each application proposes to 
serve a ``different target area or target schools or another designated 
different population'' and incorporating the statutory definition of 
the term different population, we would retain the current practice of 
funding separate projects to serve different target areas and target 
schools. We would also ensure that the regulations are consistent with 
the statutory definition of the term different population in the HEA.
    In determining how to reflect the definition for the term different 
population in the proposed regulations, we also considered how we would 
manage applications proposing to serve different populations. While 
grantees must be able to serve more students and to tailor services to 
meet the distinct needs of different populations (as

[[Page 13822]]

defined in 402A(h) of the HEA), it is necessary for the Department to 
establish some limitations on the number of separate applications an 
eligible entity may submit for each competition to serve different 
populations. Without such limitations, adding the definition of the 
term different population to the regulations could have the unintended 
consequence of disproportionately increasing funding at some 
institutions, agencies, and organizations that submit several 
applications while limiting the funds available to expand program 
services to other areas, schools, and institutions. To mitigate this 
risk and ensure fairness and consistency in the application process, 
the Department proposes to amend the regulations for each of the TRIO 
programs. The proposed regulations would provide that the Department 
will define, for each competition, the different populations of 
participants for which an eligible entity can submit separate 
applications in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and 
other published application materials for the competition.
    This approach would give the Department the flexibility to 
designate the different populations for each competition based on 
changing national needs. It also would permit the Department to manage 
more effectively the program competitions within the available 
resources.
    For these reasons, under the proposed regulations, an entity 
applying for more than one grant under the TS, EOC, and UB programs 
would be able to submit separate applications to serve different target 
areas and different target schools, and would also be able to submit 
separate applications to serve one or more of the different populations 
of participants designated in the Federal Register notice inviting 
applications. Entities applying for grants under the SSS and McNair 
programs would be able to submit separate applications to serve 
different campuses and also would be able to submit separate 
applications to serve one or more of the different populations of 
participants designated in the Federal Register notice inviting 
applications for the competition.
    Finally, we are proposing to amend the Training program regulations 
by adding a new Sec.  642.7 to provide that an eligible applicant may 
submit more than one application for grants as long as each application 
describes a project that addresses a different absolute priority. This 
proposed change reflects the amendments made by the HEOA as well as the 
Department's current practices.

Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO Program (Newly 
Redesignated Sec.  642.6 and Sec. Sec.  643.7, 644.7, 645.6, 646.7, and 
647.7)

    As a result of the changes made by the HEOA to sections 402A, 402B, 
402C, 402D, 402E, 402F, and 402G of the HEA, the Department proposes to 
add new definitions to the Federal TRIO program regulations and to 
revise other definitions in those regulations. We also propose to add 
to the TRIO Program regulations certain terms and their definitions 
that are in other portions of the HEA and the Department's regulations. 
In the following section, we discuss those proposed changes to 
definitions used in more than one of the Federal TRIO program 
regulations. For proposed changes to definitions that apply to only one 
or two programs, we address those proposed changes under the specific 
programs.

Disconnected Students

    The HEOA amended the HEA to provide that each of the TRIO programs 
may provide services to ``disconnected students,'' but the term 
``disconnected students'' is never defined in the statute. 
``Disconnected students'' is a broad term that could apply to a broad 
spectrum of students, and could vary depending on the goals of the 
particular project. In these circumstances, we do not believe it is 
useful to define the term in these proposed regulations. Instead, we 
believe it is more appropriate for an applicant proposing to provide 
programs and activities specifically designed for ``disconnected 
students'' to define the term for its proposed project and to identify 
and describe in its application the specific needs of the 
``disconnected students'' to be served by the project.

Different Campus and Different Population

    Refer to the discussion of these terms earlier in this preamble, 
under the heading Number of Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit 
to Serve Different Campuses and Different Populations.

Financial and Economic Literacy

    Statute: Section 402 of the HEOA amended the HEA to include 
education and counseling services designed to improve the financial and 
economic literacy of students as (1) a required service for TS grantees 
(see section 402B(b)(6) of the HEA), UB grantees (see section 
402C(b)(6) of the HEA), and SSS grantees (see section 402D(b)(4) of the 
HEA), and (2) a permissible service for McNair grantees (see section 
402E(c)(1) of the HEA) and EOC projects (see section 402F(b)(5) of the 
HEA). Section 402A(f)(1) of the HEOA also amended section 402F(a)(3) of 
the HEA to provide that a purpose of the EOC program is to improve the 
financial and economic literacy of students. The HEA does not define 
the term ``financial and economic literacy.''
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose to define the term financial and 
economic literacy as knowledge about personal financial decision-
making, including but not limited to knowledge about--
    (1) Personal and family budget planning;
    (2) Understanding credit building principles to meet long-term and 
short-term goals (including loan to debt ratio, credit scoring, 
negative impacts on credit scores);
    (3) Cost planning for secondary education (e.g., spending, saving, 
personal budgeting);
    (4) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition 
vs. fees, personal costs);
    (5) Scholarship, grant and loan education (e.g., searches, 
application processes, and the differences between private and 
government loans); and
    (6) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal 
Student Aid (FAFSA).
    We propose to include this definition in Sec.  643.7 (TS); Sec.  
644.7 (EOC); Sec.  645.6 (UB); Sec.  646.7 (SSS); and Sec.  647.7 
(McNair).
    Reasons: The proposed definition of the term financial and economic 
literacy is needed to implement the statutory requirement that TS, EOC, 
UB, SSS, and McNair grantees teach and counsel participants and, as 
appropriate, their families, about personal financial decision making, 
including financial planning for postsecondary education.

Foster Care and Homeless Youth

    Statute: Section 403(a)(3)(B) of the HEOA amended section 
402A(e)(3) of the HEA by adding the following two groups of students 
that grantees are encouraged to serve under the Federal TRIO programs: 
foster care youth and homeless children and youth, as defined in 
section 725 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Sections 
402B(c)(7), 402C(d)(7), 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6), 402F(b)(11), and 
402G(b)(5) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, include, among the 
permissible services that TRIO projects may provide, programs and 
activities that are specifically designed for homeless children and 
youth and students who are in foster care or are aging out of the 
foster care system.
    Current Regulations: None.

[[Page 13823]]

    Proposed Regulations: We propose to add definitions of the terms 
foster care youth and homeless children and youth to the following 
Federal TRIO program regulations: newly redesignated Sec.  642.6 
(Training); Sec.  643.7 (TS); Sec.  644.7 (EOC); Sec.  645.6 (UB); and 
Sec.  646.7 (SSS). We propose to define foster care youth as youth who 
are in foster care or are aging out of the foster care system. For the 
definition of homeless children and youth, we propose to add a cross-
reference to the definition of that term in section 725 of the 
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a).
    Reasons: The HEOA requires projects funded under the Federal TRIO 
programs to make services available to youth in or aging out of foster 
care and to homeless children and youth. Providing definitions of the 
terms foster care youth and homeless children and youth helps ensure 
that these groups are appropriately served under each of the Federal 
TRIO programs. The definition of foster care youth is based on the use 
of the term in sections 402A(e)(3), 402B(c)(7), 402C(d)(7), 402D(c)(7), 
and 402F(b)(11), and 402G(b)(5) of the HEA. Consistent with sections 
402A(e)(3), 402B(c)(7), 402C(d)(7), 402D(c)(7), and 402F(b)(11), and 
402G(b)(5) of the HEA, the proposed definition of homeless children and 
youth would reference the definition in the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a).
    We do not propose to include the definitions of foster care youth 
and homeless children and youth in the regulations for the McNair 
program because section 402E of the HEA, which authorizes the McNair 
program, does not include these two terms.

Individual With Disabilities

    Statute: Sections 402B(c)(7), 402C(d)(7), 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6), 
402F(b)(11), and 402G(b)(5) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, include 
among the permissible services that TRIO projects may provide programs 
and activities that are specifically designed for students with 
disabilities. Other sections of the HEA relating to the TRIO programs 
refer to ``individuals with disabilities'' (e.g., 402A(f)(2) and 
402D(e)(1)(A), (e)(2), and (e)(3) of the HEA).
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  646.7 (SSS) defines the term 
individual with disabilities as a person who has a diagnosed physical 
or mental impairment that substantially limits that person's ability to 
participate in the educational experiences and opportunities offered by 
the grantee institution. None of the Department's current regulations 
for the other Federal TRIO programs define the terms individual with 
disabilities or students with disabilities.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to use a slightly modified 
version of the definition of the term individual with disabilities that 
is in current Sec.  646.7 (for the SSS program) for all Federal TRIO 
programs, except for the McNair program, which does not use that term. 
Under the proposed definition, an individual with disabilities would be 
a person who has a diagnosed physical or mental impairment that 
substantially limits that person's ability to participate in 
educational experiences and opportunities. We would no longer provide 
that the impairment must limit the person's ability to participate in 
``educational experiences and opportunities offered at the grantee 
institution.'' We propose to incorporate this definition in newly 
redesignated Sec.  642.6 (Training), Sec.  643.7 (TS), Sec.  644.7 
(EOC), Sec.  645.6 (UB), and Sec.  646.7 (SSS).
    Proposed Sec.  642.11(b)(5), newly redesignated Sec.  
642.24(a)(21), and proposed Sec. Sec.  643.4(b)(7), 644.4(k), 
645.12(f), and 646.4(b)(6) would be amended to refer to students or 
participants who are individuals with disabilities.
    Reasons: For consistency across the Federal TRIO programs, we 
propose to use the same definition of the term individual with 
disabilities for the Training, TS, EOC, UB, and SSS program 
regulations. As noted earlier in this discussion, we are proposing to 
use the definition of individual with disabilities from the current SSS 
regulations except to drop the phrase ``offered at the grantee 
institution'' so that the definition would be applicable to the other 
Federal TRIO programs, some of which serve individuals not enrolled at 
the grantee institution. This proposed definition would help ensure 
that the services and activities that TRIO projects provide for 
individuals with disabilities address the educational needs of 
individuals with a diagnosed physical or mental impairment so that they 
are able to benefit from the educational services provided by the 
projects.

Institution of Higher Education

    Statute: Sections 101 and 102 of the HEA define the term 
institution of higher education.
    Current Regulations: The definition of the term institution of 
higher education in current Sec. Sec.  642.5(b), 643.7(b), 644.7(b), 
645.6(b), 646.7(a), and 647.7(b) refers to sections 481 and 1201(a) of 
the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to correct the cross-
references in the definition of the term institution of higher 
education to reference the definitions provided in sections 101 and 102 
of the HEA (see newly redesignated Sec.  642.6 (Training) and proposed 
Sec. Sec.  643.7 (TS), 644.7 (EOC), 645.6 (UB), 646.7 (SSS), and 647.7 
(McNair)).
    Reasons: To correct obsolete cross-references, we propose to amend 
the current regulatory definition of the term institution of higher 
education for each of the Federal TRIO program regulations.

Veteran

    Statute: Section 403(a)(7)(C)(iii) of the HEOA amended section 
402A(h)(5) of the HEA, which defines the term ``veteran eligibility'' 
for purposes of the Federal TRIO programs. The amended definition of 
veteran eligibility provides that veterans of the Armed Forces Reserves 
will not be deemed ineligible to participate in the Federal TRIO 
programs because of age if they served on active duty for a period of 
more than 30 days (see section 402A(h)(5)(C) of the HEA) or in support 
of a contingency operation on or after September 11, 2001 (see section 
402A(h)(5)(D) of the HEA).
    Current Regulations: The term veteran is defined in current 
Sec. Sec.  643.7 (TS), 644.7 (EOC), and 645.6 (UB) as a person who 
served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the United 
States (1) for a period of more than 180 days, any part of which 
occurred after January 31, 1955, and who was discharged or released 
from active duty under conditions other than dishonorable or (2) after 
January 31, 1955, and who was discharged or released from active duty 
because of a service-connected disability. This definition was based on 
the statutory definition of the term ``veteran eligibility'' prior to 
the enactment of the HEOA. The definition is not included in Sec.  
642.6 (Training), Sec.  646.7 (SSS), and Sec.  647.7 (McNair).
    Proposed Regulations: We propose to replace the current definition 
of the term veteran in Sec. Sec.  643.7(b), 644.7(b), and 645.6(b) with 
the following definition, which tracks the language in section 
402A(h)(5) of the HEA: A veteran means a person who: (a) Served on 
active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States for a 
period of more than 180 days and was discharged or released under 
conditions other than dishonorable; (b) Served on active duty as a 
member of the Armed Forces of the United States and was discharged or 
released because of a service connected disability; (c) Was a member of 
a reserve component of the

[[Page 13824]]

Armed Forces of the United States and was called to active duty for a 
period of more than 30 days; or (d) Was a member of a reserve component 
of the Armed Forces of the United States who served on active duty in 
support of a contingency operation (as that term is defined in section 
101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code) on or after September 11, 
2001.
    Reasons: These changes are made to reflect the changes made to the 
definition of the term veteran eligibility in section 402A(h)(5) of the 
HEA. This provision only affects TS, EOC, and UB grants that have 
otherwise applicable statutory age requirements.

Evaluating Prior Experience--Outcome Criteria

    Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the HEA requires the Secretary to 
consider, when making Federal TRIO grants, each applicant's prior 
experience of high quality service delivery (PE) under the program for 
which funds are sought. Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by 
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now identifies the specific outcome 
criteria to be used to determine an entity's PE under the TS (see 
section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA), UB (see section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the 
HEA), SSS (see section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA), McNair (see section 
402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA), and EOC (see section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the 
HEA) programs. These are the same outcome criteria that the Secretary 
must use for reporting annually to Congress on the performance of each 
of the Federal TRIO programs (see 402A(f)(4) of the HEA). The HEA does 
not establish specific outcome criteria for the Training program and 
does not specify the distribution of the PE points among the outcome 
criteria for any of the Federal TRIO programs.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec. Sec.  642.32 (Training), 643.22 
(TS), 644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and 647.22 (McNair) 
explain how the Secretary evaluates PE and awards PE points to 
applicants in grant competitions for each program. These regulations 
include the specific criteria (measurements) the Secretary uses to 
evaluate an applicant's performance and the maximum number of points 
the applicant may earn for each PE criterion.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise the outcome 
criteria for awarding PE points in Sec. Sec.  643.22 (TS), 644.22 
(EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and 647.22 (McNair)) to incorporate 
the statutorily required outcome measures in section 402A(f)(3) of the 
HEA, and to distribute the PE points among the new outcome criteria for 
these programs.
    With regard to the Training program's outcome criteria for awarding 
PE points, we are proposing to make minor changes to the outcome 
criteria as well as changes to reflect the maximum number of PE points 
a Training program grantee may earn. The maximum number of PE points in 
the Training program would change from 8 to 15 (see proposed Sec.  
642.22(b)(1)).
    The following is a list of the proposed outcome criteria for 
evaluating PE, organized by regulatory provision, and the point 
distribution among the outcome criteria for evaluating PE under each of 
the Federal TRIO programs.

Training (Sec.  642.22(e))

    Number of participants (4 points).
    Training objectives (8 points).
    Administrative requirements (3 points).

Talent Search (Sec.  643.22(d))

    Number of participants (3 points).
    Secondary school persistence (3 points).
    Secondary school graduation (regular secondary school diploma) (3 
points).
    Secondary school graduation (rigorous secondary school program of 
study) (1.5 points).
    Postsecondary enrollment (3 points).
    Postsecondary completion (1.5 points).

Educational Opportunity Centers (Sec.  644.22(d))

    Number of participants (3 points).
    Secondary school diploma (3 points).
    Postsecondary enrollment (6 points).
    Financial aid assistance (1.5 points).
    College admission assistance (1.5 points).

Upward Bound (Sec.  645.32(e))

Regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science Centers

    Number of participants (3 points).
    Academic Performance (3 points).
    Secondary school retention and graduation (3 points).
    Rigorous secondary school program of study (1.5 points).
    Postsecondary enrollment (3 points).
    Postsecondary completion (1.5 points).

Veterans Upward Bound

    Number of participants (3 points).
    Academic improvement on standardized test (3 points).
    Education program retention and completion (3 points).
    Postsecondary enrollment (3 points).
    Postsecondary completion (3 points).

Student Support Services (Sec.  646.22(e))

    Number of participants (3 points).
    Postsecondary retention (4 points).
    Good academic standing (4 points).
    Degree completion (4 points) (for an applicant institution of 
higher education offering primarily a baccalaureate or higher degree) 
or
    Degree completion and transfer (for an applicant institution of 
higher education offering primarily an associate degree) (4 points).

McNair (Sec.  647.22(e))

    Number of participants (3 points).
    Research and scholarly activities (3 points).
    Graduate school enrollment (3 points).
    Continued enrollment in graduate school (4 points).
    Doctoral degree attainment (2 points).
    Under the proposed regulations, we would award PE points for each 
outcome criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded 
the applicable project objectives. This determination would be based on 
the information in the grantee's annual performance report (see 
proposed Sec. Sec.  642.22(a)(2) (Training), 643.22(a)(2) (TS), 
644.22(a)(2) (EOC), 645.32(a)(2) (UB), 646.22(a)(2) (SSS), and 
647.22(a)(2) (McNair)).
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  642.22 (Training), 643.22 (TS), 644.22 (EOC), 
645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and 647.22 (McNair) also would describe the 
process the Secretary uses to award PE points. For example, a grantee 
that does not serve at least 90 percent of the approved number of 
participants to be served in a given project year would not be eligible 
to receive any PE points for that year (see proposed Sec. Sec.  
642.22(c) (Training), 643.22(b) (TS), 644.22(b) (EOC), 645.32(b) (UB), 
646.22(b) (SSS), and 647.22(b) (McNair)).
    Under proposed Sec. Sec.  642.22(d) (Training), 643.22(c) (TS), 
644.22(c) (EOC), 645.32(c) (UB), 646.22(c) (SSS), and 647.22(c) 
(McNair), a grantee that does not serve its approved number of 
participants in a given year would not receive any PE points for the 
number of participants criterion for that year.
    For any PE outcome criterion that measures the performance of all 
participants served in a given project year (e.g., academic improvement 
and secondary school retention and graduation for UB), the Secretary 
would use the actual number of participants served in a given year or 
the approved number of participants to be served, whichever is greater, 
as the denominator for calculating whether the applicant has met its 
approved objectives (see

[[Page 13825]]

proposed Sec. Sec.  645.32(d), 646.22(d), and 647.22(d)).
    For a grantee that served less than the approved number of 
participants but at least 90 percent of the approved number to be 
served in a given year, the approved number to be served, not the 
actual number served, would be used as the denominator in calculating 
whether the applicant met its approved objectives (see proposed 
Sec. Sec.  645.32(d), 646.22(d), and 647.22(d)).
    For any PE outcome criterion related to measuring outcomes based on 
a cohort of students (see proposed Sec. Sec.  643.22(d)(3) through 
(d)(6); 644.22(d)(3); 645.32(e)(1)(ii) through (e)(1)(vi) and 
645.32(e)(2)(iii) through (e)(2)(v); 646.22(e)(2), (4), and (5); 
647.22(e)(3) through (e)(5)), the grantee would be required to report 
on all the participants in the cohort. To report on these participants, 
the grantee would need to track the academic progress of these 
participants for the time period specified in the approved objectives.
    Consistent with section 402A(f)(1) of the HEA, we are proposing to 
specify in Sec. Sec.  643.22(d); 644.22(d); 645.32(e); 646.22(e); and 
647.22(e) that the new outcome criteria for evaluating PE would be used 
to evaluate the performance of a grantee on any new grant that is 
awarded after January 1, 2009. We also propose to modify the PE outcome 
criteria to make them consistent across all Federal TRIO programs (see 
proposed Sec. Sec.  642.22 (Training), 643.22 (TS), 644.22 (EOC), 
645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and 647.22 (McNair)).
    Reasons: We are proposing to revise the outcome criteria in 
Sec. Sec.  643.22 (TS), 644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and 
647.22 (McNair) and to redistribute the 15 PE points among the new 
criteria in each of these TRIO programs to reflect the new outcome 
criteria in section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) 
of the HEOA.
    First, we propose to make technical changes to the PE criteria in 
the current regulations so that the criteria align with section 
402A(f)(3) of the HEA and are consistent (to the extent possible) 
across programs.
    Second, we are proposing to change the maximum number of PE points 
a Training program grantee may earn from 8 points to 15 points to be 
consistent with the maximum PE points for the other Federal TRIO 
programs. Section 402A(c)(2) of the HEA provides that the Secretary 
must give the PE factor for the TS, UB, SSS, McNair and EOC programs 
the same level of consideration given to the PE factor for those 
programs during fiscal years 1994 through 1997. The Department's 
regulations for the TS, UB, SSS, McNair, and EOC programs already 
specify that the maximum number of PE points is 15 and this is the 
amount used for the period of time referenced in section 402A(c)(2). 
Therefore, the Department believes it is appropriate to use the 15 
point maximum for all programs.
    We are proposing to provide that PE points be awarded by 
determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable project 
objectives that have been agreed upon by the grantee and the 
Department, to: (1) Be consistent with section 402A(f)(3) of the HEA; 
(2) establish clear performance standards; (3) promote accountability; 
and (4) reward the performance of a grantee that meets or exceeds its 
approved objectives (see proposed Sec. Sec.  642.22 (Training), 643.22 
(TS), 644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22 (SSS), and 647.22 (McNair)).
    To ensure that PE points are awarded only to grantees that have met 
high performance standards, we propose to establish an annual 
performance threshold that a grantee must meet to receive any PE points 
for that year. A grantee that does not serve at least 90 percent of the 
approved number of participants to be served in a given year will not 
be eligible for any PE points for that year (see proposed Sec. Sec.  
642.22(c) (Training), 643.22(b) (TS), 644.22(b) (EOC), 645.32(b) (UB), 
646.22(b) (SSS), and 647.22(b) (McNair)).
    In addition, we believe that in specifying when the actual number 
of participants and when the approved number of participants are used 
to calculate a grantee's PE points (as reflected in proposed Sec. Sec.  
645.32(d) (UB); Sec.  646.22(d) (SSS); and Sec.  647.22(d) (McNair), 
the Department can clearly identify the performance standards and help 
to ensure that PE points are awarded in a fair and equitable manner. 
These regulatory changes also would help ensure that all grantees are 
held to the same high standards and that applicants and grantees 
understand these standards.
    The new statutorily required PE outcome criteria will be used to 
evaluate the performance of a grantee under its expiring grant if that 
expiring grant was awarded after January 1, 2009.
    In reviewing the PE sections of the current regulations, we noted 
some differences in the format and regulatory language used among the 
six programs. For consistency and to improve clarity, we propose 
standardizing the regulatory language and the format for the PE outcome 
criteria (e.g., we propose using the same language to describe the 
number of participant criterion and to put this criterion as the first 
PE criterion for all programs). We also propose to revise the PE 
criteria to clarify how each of the criteria would be measured (e.g., 
for the UB program, we explain that postsecondary enrollment criterion 
is measured by the percentage of current and prior-year participants 
with an expected high school graduation date in the project year) to 
assist applicants in understanding the process so they can set project 
objectives that are both ambitious and attainable (see proposed 
Sec. Sec.  642.22 (Training), 643.22 (TS), 644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB), 
646.22 (SSS), and 647.22 (McNair)).

TRIO Outcome Criteria--Tracking Participants for Talent Search and 
Upward Bound Programs

    Statute: Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, provides that the outcome criteria for the TS 
and UB programs must include, to the extent practicable, the 
postsecondary education completion of students served by the TS and UB 
programs, respectively.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  643.22 specifies how the 
Secretary evaluates PE for the TS program. Current Sec.  645.32 
specifies how the Secretary evaluates PE for the UB program. These 
provisions do not reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend the regulations to 
address the postsecondary education completion of students served. The 
proposed regulations would provide that one and one-half PE points 
would be awarded for postsecondary completion under the TS program in 
proposed Sec.  643.22(d)(6) and under the regular UB and UB Math and 
Science Centers programs in proposed Sec.  645.32(e)(1)(vi). Three PE 
points will be awarded for postsecondary completion under the Veterans 
UB program in proposed Sec.  645.32(e)(2)(v).
    For regular UB and Upward Bound Math and Science (UBMS), under 
proposed Sec.  645.32(e)(1)(vi), and for Veterans UB, under proposed 
Sec.  645.32(e)(2)(v), grantees would be required to track the academic 
progress of all project participants that enrolled in postsecondary 
education for the number of years specified in the approved objectives 
to determine if the applicant met or exceeded its objective regarding 
the completion by its students of a program of postsecondary education.
    For the TS program, under proposed Sec.  643.22(d)(6), we would 
determine whether an applicant met or exceeded its objective regarding 
the completion of a program of postsecondary education within the 
number of years specified in

[[Page 13826]]

the approved objective by requiring the grantee to track the 
postsecondary degree completion of a randomly selected sample of 
participants in accordance with parameters established by the Secretary 
in the notice inviting applications published in the Federal Register. 
TS grantees would not be required to track all project participants 
through completion of postsecondary degrees.
    Reasons: Section 402A(f)(3)(B)(vii) of the HEA requires that a 
grantee, to the extent practicable, report on the postsecondary 
completion of project participants. Based on the relatively small 
number of students served each year by each UB grantee and the 
availability of a variety of databases and other means for tracking a 
participant's postsecondary progress, we believe it is practicable for 
UB grantees to track participants through completion of a postsecondary 
degree.
    Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(vi) of the HEA also requires that a grantee, 
to the extent practicable, report on the postsecondary completion of 
project participants. Unlike UB, however, we do not believe that 
tracking all TS project participants through postsecondary completion 
is practicable due to the large number of participants in TS grant 
projects. Historically, TS projects have served large numbers of 
participants and we expect that TS will continue to do so. We believe 
it would be very difficult for TS grantees to track all of their 
project participants. Therefore, we are proposing to permit TS grantees 
to track and report on the postsecondary completion of a randomly 
selected sample of project participants. To ensure consistency in the 
methodology used among projects to select the sample, we would issue 
guidance to TS projects on sample selection.

Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants

    Statute: Section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(2) of the HEOA, requires the Department to establish a formal 
process for reviewing unsuccessful applications for TRIO program 
grants. Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(i) of the HEA provides that with respect 
to any competition for a grant under the Federal TRIO program, an 
applicant which has otherwise met all of the requirements for 
submission of the application may request a review by the Secretary if 
the applicant has evidence of a specific technical, administrative, or 
scoring error made by the Department, an agent of the Department, or a 
peer reviewer, with respect to the scoring or processing of a submitted 
application.
    Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(ii) of the HEA provides that in the case of 
evidence of a technical or administrative error, the Secretary must 
review the evidence and provide a timely response to the applicant. If 
the Secretary determines that a technical or administrative error was 
made by the Department or an agent of the Department, the application 
must be reconsidered in the peer review process for the applicable 
grant competition.
    Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iii) of the HEA provides that in the case of 
evidence of a scoring error, when the error relates to either the 
calculation of PE points or to the calculation of the final score of an 
application, the Secretary must review the evidence and provide a 
timely response to the applicant. If the Secretary determines that a 
scoring error was made by the Department or a peer reviewer, the 
Secretary will adjust the PE points or the final score of the 
application appropriately and quickly, so as not to interfere with the 
timely awarding of grants for the applicable grant competition.
    Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(I) of the HEA states that in the case of 
a peer review process error, if the Secretary determines that points 
were withheld for criteria not required in a Federal statute, 
regulation, guidance governing the Federal TRIO programs, or the 
application for a grant from the Federal TRIO programs, or determines 
that information pertaining to the selection criteria was wrongly 
determined missing from an application by a peer reviewer, then the 
Secretary must refer the application to a secondary review panel.
    Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(II) of the HEA provides that the 
secondary review panel must conduct its review in a timely fashion, and 
the score resulting from the secondary review must replace the score 
from the initial peer review.
    Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA states that the secondary 
review panel must be composed of reviewers, each of whom: Did not 
review the application in the original peer review; is a member of the 
cohort of peer reviewers for the grant program that is the subject of 
the secondary review; and, to the extent practicable, has conducted 
peer reviews in not less than two previous competitions for the grant 
program that is the subject of the secondary review.
    Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(IV) of the HEA provides that the final 
peer review score of an application subject to a secondary review must 
be adjusted appropriately and quickly using the score awarded by the 
secondary review panel, so as not to interfere with the timely awarding 
of grants.
    Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(V) of the HEA states that to qualify for 
a secondary review under section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv) of the HEA, an 
applicant must have evidence of a scoring error and must demonstrate 
that (1) points were withheld for criteria not required in any statute, 
regulation, or guidance governing the Federal TRIO programs or the 
application for a grant for these programs; or (2) information 
pertaining to the selection criteria was wrongly determined to be 
missing from the application.
    Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(v)(I) of the HEA states that a determination 
by the Secretary under section 402A(c)(8)(C)(i), (c)(8)(C)(ii), or 
(c)(8)(C)(iii) of the HEA is not reviewable by any officer or employee 
of the Department.
    Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(v)(II) of the HEA provides that the score 
awarded by a secondary review panel under 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv) of the HEA 
is not reviewable by any officer or employee of the Department other 
than the Secretary.
    Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(vi) states that to the extent feasible based 
on the availability of appropriations, the Secretary will fund 
applications with scores that are adjusted upward under 
402A(c)(8)(C)(ii), (c)(8)(C)(iii), or (c)(8)(C)(iv) of the HEA to equal 
or exceed the minimum cut off score for the applicable grant 
competition.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: The Secretary proposes to add new Sec. Sec.  
642.25 (Training); 643.24 (TS); 644.24 (EOC); 645.35 (UB); 646.24 
(SSS); and 647.24 (McNair) to implement the new review process for 
unsuccessful applicants. Specifically, proposed Sec. Sec.  642.25(a)(1) 
(Training); 643.24(a)(1) (TS); 644.24(a)(1) (EOC); 645.35(a)(1) (UB); 
646.24(a)(1) (SSS); and 647.24(a)(1) (McNair) would provide that an 
applicant whose grant application was not evaluated during a 
competition may request that the Secretary review the application if 
the applicant had met all of the application submission requirements in 
the Federal Register notice inviting applications and the other 
published application materials for the competition, and the applicant 
provides evidence demonstrating that the Department or an agent of the 
Department made a technical or administrative error in the processing 
of the submitted application.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  642.25(a)(2) (Training); 643.24(a)(2) (TS); 
644.24(a)(2) (EOC); 645.35(a)(2) (UB); 646.24(a)(2) (SSS); and 
647.24(a)(2) (McNair) specify what is considered a technical or

[[Page 13827]]

administrative error in the processing of an application.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  642.25(a)(3) (Training); 643.24(a)(3) (TS); 
644.24(a)(3) (EOC); 645.35(a)(3) (UB); 646.24(a)(3) (SSS); and 
647.24(a)(3) (McNair) would provide that if the Secretary determines 
that the Department or the Department's agent made a technical or 
administrative error, the Secretary will have the application 
reconsidered and scored, and if the total score assigned the 
application would have resulted in funding of the application during 
the competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary will 
fund the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on 
the second peer review of applications described in proposed Sec. Sec.  
642.25(c) (Training); 643.24(c) (TS); 644.24(c) (EOC); 645.35(c) (UB); 
646.24(c) (SSS); and 647.24(c) (McNair).
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  642.25(b)(1) (Training); 643.24(b)(1) (TS); 
644.24(b)(1) (EOC); 645.35(b)(1) (UB); 646.24(b)(1) (SSS); and 
647.24(b)(1) (McNair) would provide that an applicant that was not 
selected for funding during a competition may request that the 
Secretary conduct a second review of the application if the applicant 
provides evidence demonstrating that the Department, an agent of the 
Department, or a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error 
in the review of its application, and the final score assigned to the 
application is within the funding band described in proposed Sec. Sec.  
642.25(d) (Training); 643.24(d) (TS); 644.24(d) (EOC); 645.35(d) (UB); 
646.24(d) (SSS); and 647.24(d) (McNair).
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  642.25(b)(2) (Training); 643.24(b)(2) (TS); 
644.24(b)(2) (EOC); 645.35(b) (UB); 646.24(b)(2) (SSS); and 
647.24(b)(2) (McNair) would provide that an administrative error that 
would require a second review has to be an error that relates to either 
the determination of PE points for the application or the determination 
of the scores assigned to the application by the peer reviewers. These 
regulations specify that an administrative error relating to the 
determination of PE points includes (1) mathematical errors made by the 
Department or by the Department's agent in the calculation of the PE 
points or (2) a failure to correctly add the earned PE points to the 
peer review score. An administrative error relating to the 
determination of the peer review score would include an error made by 
applying the wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  642.25(b)(3) (Training); 643.24(b)(3) (TS); 
644.24(b)(3) (EOC); 645.35(b)(3) (UB); 646.24(b)(3) (SSS); and 
647.24(b)(3) (McNair) would provide that a scoring error would require 
a second review if it relates to the peer review process. A scoring 
error includes errors caused by a reviewer who, in assigning points (1) 
uses criteria not required by the applicable law or regulations, the 
Federal Register notice inviting applications, other published 
application materials for the competition, or guidance provided to the 
peer reviewers by the Secretary, or (2) does not consider relevant 
information included in the appropriate section of the application.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  642.25(c) (Training); 643.24(c) (TS); 644.24(c) 
(EOC); 645.35(c) (UB); 646.24(c) (SSS); and 647.24(c) (McNair) would 
establish the following procedures for the second review of 
applications:
    (1) After the peer review of applications, the Secretary sets aside 
a percentage of the total funds allotted for the competition to be 
awarded after the second review is completed and establishes a funding 
band. The funding band for each competition includes the applications 
with a rank-order score after the first review that is below the lowest 
score of applications funded after the first review and that would be 
funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the amount of funds that 
were set aside for the second review of applications.
    (2) The Secretary makes new awards in rank order as described in 
proposed Sec. Sec.  642.20 (Training); 643.20 (TS); 644.20 (EOC); 
645.30 (UB); 646.20 (SSS); and 647.20 (McNair) based on the available 
funds for the competition minus the funds set aside for the second 
review.
    (3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to 
successful applicants after the first review, the Secretary notifies in 
writing each unsuccessful applicant whose rank-order score is within 
the funding band as to the status of its application and provides the 
applicant with copies of the peer reviewers' evaluations of the 
applicant's application and the applicant's PE score, if applicable.
    (4) An applicant that was not selected for funding during the 
competition as described in proposed Sec. Sec.  642.25(c)(2) 
(Training); 643.24(c)(2) (TS); 644.24(c)(2) (EOC); 645.35(c)(2) (UB); 
646.24(c)(2) (SSS); and 647.24(c)(2) (McNair) and whose application 
received a score within the funding band as described in proposed 
Sec. Sec.  642.25(d) (Training); 643.24(d) (TS); 644.24(d) (EOC); 
645.35(d) (UB); 646.24(d) (SSS); and 647.24(d) (McNair), may request a 
second review if the applicant demonstrates that the Department, the 
Department's agent, or a peer reviewer made an administrative or 
scoring error.
    (5) An applicant whose application was not funded during the 
competition as described in proposed Sec. Sec.  642.25(c)(2) 
(Training); 643.24(c)(2) (TS); 644.24(c)(2) (EOC); 645.35(c)(2) (UB); 
646.24(c)(2) (SSS); and 647.24(c)(2) (McNair) and whose application 
received a score within the funding band as described in proposed 
Sec. Sec.  642.25(d) (Training); 643.24(d) (TS); 644.24(d) (EOC); 
645.35(d) (UB); 646.24(d) (SSS); and 647.24(d) (McNair) would have 
fifteen (15) calendar days after receiving the written notification 
that its application was not funded to submit a written request for a 
second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided 
in the Secretary's written notification.
    (6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be 
received by the Department or submitted electronically to a designated 
e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established by the 
Secretary.
    (7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 
Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to PE 
points, as described in proposed Sec. Sec.  642.25(b)(2)(i) (Training); 
643.24(b)(2)(i) (TS); 644.24(b)(2)(i) (EOC); 645.35(b)(2)(i) (UB); 
646.24(b)(2)(i) (SSS); and 647.24(b)(2)(i) (McNair), the Secretary 
adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct number of PE 
points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application would have 
resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the 
program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior 
to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of 
applications described in proposed Sec. Sec.  642.25(c)(9) (Training); 
643.24(c)(9) (TS); 644.24(c)(9) (EOC); 645.35(c)(9) (UB); 646.24(c)(9) 
(SSS); and 647.24(c)(9) (McNair).
    (8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the 
Department's agent or a peer reviewer made an administrative error that 
relates to the peer review score, as described in proposed Sec. Sec.  
642.25(b)(2)(ii) (Training); 643.24(b)(2)(ii) (TS); 644.24(b)(2)(ii) 
(EOC); 645.35(b)(2)(ii) (UB); 646.24(b)(2)(ii) (SSS); and 
647.24(b)(2)(ii) (McNair), the Secretary would adjust the applicant's 
peer review score to correct the error. If the adjusted score assigned 
to the application would have resulted in funding of the application 
during the competition and the program has funds available, the 
Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of applications 
based on the second peer

[[Page 13828]]

review of applications described in proposed Sec. Sec.  642.25(c)(9) 
(Training); 643.24(c)(9) (TS); 644.24(c)(9) (EOC); 645.35(c)(9) (UB); 
646.24(c)(9) (SSS); and 647.24(c)(9) (McNair).
    (9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring 
error, the Secretary would convene a second panel of peer reviewers in 
accordance with section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
    (10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer 
review would be used in the second ranking of applications. The average 
score obtained from the second peer review panel would be the final 
peer review score for the application and will be used even if it is a 
lower score than the score in the initial review).
    (11) The Secretary would fund applications in the funding band in 
rank order based on any adjusted scores and the amount of funds that 
have been set aside for the second review of applications.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  642.25(d) (Training); 643.24(d) (TS); 644.24(d) 
(EOC); 645.35(d) (UB); 646.24(d) (SSS); and 647.24(d) (McNair) would 
provide that (1) for each competition, the Secretary would establish a 
funding band for the second review of applications; (2) the Secretary 
would establish the funding band for each competition based on the 
amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second review of 
applications; (3) the funding band would include those applications 
with a rank-order score before the second review that is below the 
lowest score of applications funded after the first review and that 
would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the amount of funds 
that were set aside for the second review of applications for the 
competition.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  642.25(e) (Training); 643.24(e) (TS); 644.24(e) 
(EOC); 645.35(e) (UB); 646.24(e) (SSS); and 647.24(e) (McNair) would 
provide that: (1) the Secretary's determination of whether the 
applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the 
Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application would be final and 
not subject to further appeal or challenge; and (2) an application that 
scored below the established funding band for the competition would not 
be eligible for any further review.
    Reasons: Section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(2) of the HEOA, requires the Department to establish a formal 
process for reviewing unsuccessful grant applications in the TRIO 
programs. Proposed Sec. Sec.  642.25 (Training), 643.24 (TS), 644.24 
(EOC), 645.35 (UB), 646.24 (SSS), and 647.24 (McNair) would implement 
this requirement and ensure that the review process is clear, 
understandable, and transparent.
    We are proposing the funding band approach to the review process to 
ensure that we can meet our fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers 
to manage the grant programs based on the appropriated resources 
available at the time of each competition. This approach would also 
minimize the impact of the second review on our ability to provide 
timely notice of grant awards.
    We believe that the process we are proposing will provide fair, 
equitable, specific, clear, and understandable procedures for 
applicants to be notified about the status of their application, 
eligibility for a second review, how to request a second review, and 
other information regarding a second review.
    We decided to propose a funding band and determined the specific 
parameters for the funding band based on the Department's experience 
and historical information. In past competitions, adjustments for 
administrative and scoring errors have increased scores no more than 
two or three points; therefore, the funding band has been designed to 
include only those applications that would have a reasonable chance of 
being funded if the second review of the application results in an 
adjustment to the score. By selecting only those applications most 
likely to have a chance of being funded after a second review, we would 
be better able to effectively manage the grant competition and make 
timely funding decisions to ensure that the funds for the competition 
are obligated within the fiscal year.
    One of the non-Federal negotiators objected to the Department's 
proposal to set aside a small portion of the appropriation for the 
second review. This negotiator stated that the Department should commit 
the full amount of appropriated funds for the program prior to the 
second review of applications and then request that Congress 
appropriate additional funds in the current or next fiscal year to 
support any applications that score in the funding range following the 
second review. This negotiator objected to the fact that the 
Department's proposal to re-rank applications in the funding band after 
the second review might result in an application that would have been 
funded if there was not a second review process not being funded after 
the second review. To avoid creating a contentious situation, the 
negotiator recommended that any application that received a second 
review and whose new score would have resulted in funding during the 
competition should only be funded if the Congress provided additional 
funds for the program. The negotiator asserted that this approach would 
be consistent with the HEA, as amended by the HEOA.
    We do not agree with this recommendation. Congress specifically 
chose to require the Secretary to develop a review process for 
unsuccessful applications. In doing so, Congress clearly intended that 
applicants whose scores increased to within the funding range should be 
funded. Otherwise, the review process would provide no significant 
benefit to an applicant whose scores were increased since there would 
be no assurance of increased funding from Congress. Furthermore, we 
have a fiduciary responsibility to manage the grant competitions using 
the limited funds appropriated by Congress for the competition year. 
The Department cannot incur costs or make financial commitments from 
potential subsequent appropriations.

Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs, 34 CFR Part 642

Project Period (Proposed Sec.  642.4)

    Statute: Section 402A(b)(2)(B) of the HEA provides that Training 
program grants must be awarded for a period of two years.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to add Sec.  642.4 to 
provide that a project period under the Training program is two years.
    Reasons: We are proposing to add Sec.  642.4 to the Training 
program regulations to be consistent with section 402A(b)(2)(B) of the 
HEA.

Applicable Regulations (Current Sec.  642.4, Proposed Sec.  642.5)

    Statute: None.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  642.4 contains an outdated list 
of applicable regulations.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the list of 
regulations that apply to the Training program. We also propose to 
exclude section 34 CFR 75.215 through 75.221 from the list of 
regulations that apply.
    Reasons: We are proposing these changes so that the list of 
regulations that apply to the program is comprehensive and accurate. We 
are proposing to exclude the regulations in 34 CFR 75.215 to 75.221 
that include general rules for handling applications and specific rules 
for handling applications that are not funded through a regular 
competition. The proposed new rules governing the process for a

[[Page 13829]]

second review of unsuccessful TRIO applications would make the process 
outlined in these regulations unnecessary.

Definitions (Current Sec.  642.5, Proposed Sec.  642.6)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for the proposed regulations with regard to 
the definitions of foster care youth, homeless children and youth, 
individual with disabilities, institution of higher education, and 
veteran in the Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO 
Program section of the preamble.

Number of Applications (Proposed Sec.  642.7)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for changes regarding the number of 
applications an eligible entity may submit to apply for a grant under 
the Training program in the Number of Applications an Eligible Entity 
May Submit to Serve Different Campuses and Different Populations 
section of the preamble.

Required and Permissible Services

    Statute: Section 402G(b) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(g) 
of the HEOA, expands the types of training that grantees are required 
to provide under the Training program.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  642.10 specifies the types of 
training that a grantee is required to provide and the types of 
training that a grantee is permitted to provide under the Training 
program.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  642.11 would identify the 
training that Training program grantees must provide and would reflect 
the training requirements in section 402G(b)(5) of the HEA, as amended 
by section 403(g) of the HEOA. Specifically, in proposed Sec.  642.11, 
we would add the following to the list of topics that Training program 
grantees must provide for new project directors: (1) The use of 
appropriate educational technology in the operation of projects funded 
under the Federal TRIO programs; and (2) strategies for recruiting and 
serving hard-to-reach populations, including students who are limited 
English proficient, students from groups that are traditionally 
underrepresented in postsecondary education, students with 
disabilities, students who are homeless children and youths, students 
who are foster care youth, or other disconnected students.
    Proposed Sec.  642.12 would describe the types of training that 
Training program grantees may provide. This section would include all 
permissible Training program services listed under current Sec.  642.10 
and add the following two services to that list: On-site training and 
on-line training.
    Reasons: Currently we address both required and permissible 
training that Training program grantees provide in Sec.  642.10. We 
propose to describe the required training and permissible training in 
two separate regulations for greater clarity. We are also proposing to 
modify the regulations to reflect the changes in required and 
permissible training made by section 403(g) of the HEOA.
    We also propose to add on-site and on-line training as permissible 
activities to reflect our current administrative practice and recognize 
current educational practices.

Ranking Applications by Priority (Current Sec.  642.30, Proposed Sec.  
642.20(c) and (d))

    Statute: Section 402A(c)(3) exempts the Training program from the 
requirement that the Secretary must award Federal TRIO program grants 
in the order of the scores received by applications in the peer review 
process and adjusted for PE.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  642.30 does not address how the 
Secretary ranks applications for the Training program grants.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose to redesignate current Sec.  
642.30 as Sec.  642.20 and modify it to allow in proposed Sec.  
642.20(c) the Secretary to select Training program applications for 
funding by absolute priority in rank order on the basis of the average 
peer review score. Under proposed Sec.  642.20(d), for each absolute 
priority, if there are insufficient funds to fund all applications at a 
particular peer review score, we will add each application's PE score 
to its peer review score to determine an adjusted total score for each 
application. Under this proposed regulation, for applications with the 
same peer review score at the funding cut-off level, we would then use 
the adjusted total score to determine which of the tied applicants will 
receive funding. If a tie score still exists, the Secretary would 
select for funding the applicant that has the greatest capacity to 
provide training to eligible participants in all regions of the nation.
    Reasons: We are proposing Sec.  642.20 to reflect the Department's 
current practice and provide a specific, understandable, and fair 
method for funding new awards under the Training program. Specifically, 
we are proposing to establish regulations to fund applications by 
absolute priority to ensure that one or more training grants will be 
funded under each published priority. In addition, in proposed Sec.  
642.20 we would specify how we would handle a tie score.

Evaluation of an Application for a New Award (Current Sec. Sec.  642.30 
and 642.31, Proposed Sec. Sec.  642.20 and 642.21)

    Statute: None.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  642.30(a)(1) provides that, in 
evaluating applications for Training program grants, the Secretary 
awards up to 100 points based on the selection criteria in Sec.  
642.31. Section 642.31(f) specifies a selection criterion worth 25 
points that requires an applicant to show the need for its proposed 
Training program project.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. Sec.  642.20 and 642.21 would 
change the total number of points that may be awarded in a Training 
program competition to 75 instead of 100 points. Specifically, we are 
proposing to remove the selection criteria in current Sec.  642.31(f), 
which is worth 25 points.
    Reasons: Current Sec.  642.31(f) provides that we award up to 25 
points to an applicant that shows a need for its Training program 
project. However, every applicant is required to address one of the 
absolute priorities established in the Federal Register notice inviting 
applications for the competition. With the absolute priorities, the 
Department establishes the need for the proposed training. Thus, a 
selection criterion that requires an applicant to show the need for its 
proposed training is no longer necessary.

Prior Experience (Current Sec.  642.32, Proposed Sec.  642.22)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for changes regarding PE for the Training 
program in the Evaluating Prior Experience--Outcome Criteria section of 
the preamble.

Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants (Sec.  
642.25)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for adding new Sec.  642.25 in the Review 
Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants section of the 
preamble.

Amount of a Grant (Sec.  642.26)

    Statute: Section 402A(b)(3) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(1)(C) of the HEOA, sets the minimum Training grant amount at 
$170,000.

[[Page 13830]]

    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the regulations to 
add a new section that explains how the Secretary sets the amount of a 
grant. This section will specify that the Secretary uses the available 
funds to set the amount of the grant at the lesser of $170,000 or the 
amount requested by the applicant.
    Reasons: We are proposing this change to reflect the change to 
section 402A(b)(3) of the HEA by the HEOA.

Talent Search (TS) Program, 34 CFR Part 643

    Sections 403(a) and (b) of the HEOA amended sections 402A and 402B 
of the HEA.

Changes to the Purpose of Talent Search (Sec.  643.1)

    Statute: Section 403(b) of the HEOA amended Section 402B of the HEA 
to reflect changes to the purposes of the TS program.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  643.1 does not reflect the 
changes made to the purposes of the TS program by the HEOA.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend Sec.  643.1 to provide 
that one of the purposes of the TS program is to have grantees 
publicize the availability of, and facilitate the application for, 
student financial assistance and to encourage persons who have not 
completed secondary or postsecondary education to enter, or reenter, 
and complete such programs.
    Reasons: The proposed amendment would conform current Sec.  643.1 
to the changes made to section 402B of the HEA, by the HEOA.

Applicant Eligibility (Sec.  643.2)

    Statute: Section 402A(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the HEOA, lists the types of entities that are 
eligible for TS grants. Prior to enactment of the HEOA, a secondary 
school could apply for a TS grant under ``exceptional circumstances.'' 
The HEOA eliminates this restriction on the eligibility of a secondary 
school. Further, the HEOA modified the definition of the public and 
private agencies and organizations that are eligible for grants to 
include community-based organizations with experience in serving 
disadvantaged youth.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  643.2 specifies who is eligible 
to apply for a TS grant. This provision does not reflect the changes 
made by the HEOA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  643.2 to 
reflect the statutory changes to the rules on applicant eligibility. 
Under the revised regulations, a secondary school would be eligible to 
apply for a TS grant without having to demonstrate ``exceptional 
circumstances.'' In addition, a community-based organization with 
experience in serving disadvantaged youth may apply for a TS grant.
    Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec.  643.2 to reflect 
the changes made to the applicant eligibility provisions for the TS 
program in section 402A(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA.

Participant Eligibility (Sec.  643.3)

    Statute: Section 403(b)(1)(B) of the HEOA amended section 
402B(a)(3) of the HEA by deleting the requirement that a participant 
must have the ability to complete a program of secondary or 
postsecondary education.
    Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, includes a new outcome criterion for TS that 
requires projects to report on participants who complete a rigorous 
secondary school program of study. The statute does not specify 
eligibility criteria for participants enrolled in a rigorous secondary 
school program of study.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  643.3(a)(3)(i) requires that a 
participant in a TS program have potential for a program of 
postsecondary education. Current Sec.  643.3(a)(3)(ii) requires that a 
participant have the ability to complete a program of postsecondary 
education. The current regulations do not include eligibility 
requirements for participants receiving support to complete a rigorous 
secondary school program of study.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the TS participant 
eligibility regulations in Sec.  643.3(a)(3)(i) by removing the 
requirement that a participant have the potential for a program of 
postsecondary education. We are also proposing to amend Sec.  
643.3(a)(3)(ii) by removing the requirement that a participant who has 
undertaken, but is not presently enrolled in, a program of 
postsecondary education have the ability to complete such a program.
    We are proposing to add participant eligibility requirements for TS 
participants who receive support from a TS grantee to complete a 
rigorous secondary school program of study. Those participants must be 
accepted into the TS program by the end of the first term of the tenth 
grade, be enrolled in or be preparing to enroll in a rigorous secondary 
school program of study as defined by his or her State of residence, 
and be designated as enrolled in a rigorous secondary school program of 
study on the grantee's reports to the Secretary.
    Reasons: To reflect the changes made to section 402B(a)(3) of the 
HEA and in response to comments made by the non-Federal negotiators 
during the negotiated rulemaking sessions, we are proposing: (1) To 
remove the current regulatory language that requires potential 
participants who have not entered into postsecondary education to have 
potential for a program of postsecondary education; and (2) to remove 
regulatory language that requires potential participants who have 
previously dropped out of postsecondary education to have the ability 
to complete such a program.
    We are also proposing to add eligibility requirements for 
participants receiving support to complete a rigorous secondary school 
program of study to help ensure that they receive sufficient services 
from the TS project to achieve at the level needed to be eligible for 
grants under the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) program. This 
change would be consistent with the new HEOA outcome criteria in 
section 402A(f)(3)(A)(4) of the HEA for the TS program, which measures 
the extent to which project participants complete a rigorous secondary 
school program of study that would make these students eligible for 
programs such as the ACG program.

Required and Permissible Services (Sec.  643.4)

    Statute: The HEA lists certain services or activities that projects 
funded under the TS program must provide and services or activities 
that these projects may provide. Section 403(b) and (c) of the HEOA 
amended section 402B(b) and (c) of the HEA relating to required and 
permissible services or activities for TS program grantees.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  643.4 specifies what services a 
TS project may provide. This provision does not reflect the changes 
made by the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  643.4 to 
revise the list of required and permissible services or activities to 
be provided by projects funded under the TS program to reflect changes 
made by the HEOA. The proposed regulations would list the services or 
activities that projects must provide and the services or activities 
that projects may provide.
    We are proposing to amend the TS program regulations to require 
that projects provide the following services: (1) Connecting 
participants to high

[[Page 13831]]

quality academic tutoring services to enable participants to complete 
secondary or postsecondary courses; (2) providing advice and assistance 
to participants in secondary school course selection and, if 
applicable, initial postsecondary course selection; (3) providing 
assistance to participants in preparing for college entrance 
examinations and completing college admission applications; (4) 
providing (i) information on the full range of Federal student 
financial aid programs and benefits (including Federal Pell Grant 
awards and loan forgiveness) and resources for locating public and 
private scholarships and (ii) assistance in completing financial aid 
applications, including the Free Application for Federal Student Aid; 
(5) providing participants with guidance on and assistance in secondary 
school reentry, alternative education programs for secondary school 
dropouts that lead to the receipt of a regular secondary school 
diploma, entry into general educational development (GED) programs, or 
entry into postsecondary education; and (6) connecting participants to 
education or counseling services designed to improve the financial 
literacy and economic literacy of participants or the participants' 
parents, including financial planning for postsecondary education.
    We are proposing to specify that the following are permissible 
services for TS projects: (1) Academic tutoring, which may include 
instruction in reading, writing, study skills, mathematics, science, 
and other subjects; (2) personal and career counseling or activities; 
(3) information and activities designed to acquaint youth with the 
range of career options available to them; (4) exposure to the campuses 
of institutions of higher education, as well as cultural events, 
academic programs, and other sites or activities not usually available 
to disadvantaged youth; (5) workshops and counseling for families of 
participants served; (6) mentoring programs involving elementary or 
secondary school teachers or counselors, faculty members at 
institutions of higher education, students, or any combination of these 
persons; and (7) the programs and activities described in items (1) 
through (6) that are specially designed for participants who are 
limited English proficient, from groups that are traditionally 
underrepresented in postsecondary education, individuals with 
disabilities, homeless children and youths, foster care youth, or other 
disconnected participants.
    Reasons: The proposed amendments would conform the regulations to 
the statutory amendments made by the HEOA to section 402B of the HEA. 
Prior to enactment of the HEOA projects funded under the TS program 
could choose from a number of permissible activities and services to 
provide participants. Section 403(b) of the HEOA amended section 402B 
of the HEA to require grantees to provide certain services and give 
grantees the option of providing other services. The proposed 
amendments reflect these statutory changes.

Project Period (Sec.  643.5)

    Statute: Prior to enactment of the HEOA, TS grants were generally 
awarded for four years. Grantees whose peer-review scores were in the 
highest ten percent of the scores of all applicants, received five year 
grants. The HEOA amended the HEA so that all TS grants are for five 
years.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  643.5 specifies the length of a 
TS project period. This provision does not reflect the changes made by 
the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the regulations to 
define the project period as five years for all grantees.
    Reasons: The change is made to conform the regulations to section 
402A(b)(2) of the HEA.

Applicable Regulations (Sec.  643.6)

    Statute: None.
    Current Regulations: Section 643.6 contains an outdated list of 
applicable regulations.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to update the list of 
regulations that apply to the TS program. We also propose to exclude 34 
CFR 75.215 through 221 from the list of regulations that apply.
    Reasons: We discuss the reasons for the proposed amendments in the 
discussion of Applicable Regulations for the Training Program for 
Federal TRIO Programs section of this preamble (current Sec.  642.4, 
proposed Sec.  642.5).

Definitions (Sec.  643.7)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for changes to the definitions of institution 
of higher education and veteran and for the addition of different 
population, financial and economic literacy, foster care youth, 
homeless children and youth, and individual with disabilities in the 
Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO Program section of 
the preamble. We are also proposing to define two additional terms 
applicable to the TS program in these regulations: regular secondary 
school diploma and rigorous secondary school program of study.

Regular Secondary School Diploma

    Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iii) of the HEA was amended by 
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA to include a new outcome criterion for TS 
that requires grantees to report on the graduation of participants who 
complete secondary school with a regular secondary school diploma in 
the standard number of years.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  643.7(b) to 
define regular secondary school diploma to mean a level attained by 
individuals who meet or exceed the coursework and performance standards 
for high school completion established by the individual's State.
    Reasons: We are proposing the addition of the definition of regular 
secondary school diploma to ensure that there is a clear and consistent 
understanding of the term in the TS program.

Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study

    Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the HEA, as amended by 
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, includes a new outcome criterion for TS 
that requires projects to report on participants who complete a 
rigorous secondary school program of study. The term rigorous secondary 
school program of study is not defined in the statute.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  643.7(b) to 
include a definition of rigorous secondary school program of study. The 
proposed regulations would define rigorous secondary school program of 
study to mean a program of study that is--
    (1) Established by a State educational agency (SEA) or local 
educational agency (LEA) and recognized as a rigorous secondary school 
program of study by the Secretary through the process described in 34 
CFR Sec.  691.16(a) through Sec.  691.16(c) for the ACG Program;
    (2) An advanced or honors secondary school program established by 
States and in existence for the 2004-2005 school year or later school 
years;
    (3) Any secondary school program in which a student successfully 
completes at a minimum the following courses:
    (i) Four years of English.
    (ii) Three years of mathematics, including algebra I and a higher-
level

[[Page 13832]]

class such as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and statistics.
    (iii) Three years of science, including one year each of at least 
two of the following courses: biology, chemistry, and physics.
    (iv) Three years of social studies.
    (v) One year of a language other than English;
    (4) A secondary school program identified by a State-level 
partnership that is recognized by the State Scholars Initiative of the 
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), Boulder, 
Colorado;
    (5) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at 
least two courses from an International Baccalaureate Diploma Program 
sponsored by the International Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva, 
Switzerland, and receives a score of a ``4'' or higher on the 
examinations for at least two of those courses; or
    (6) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at 
least two Advanced Placement courses and receives a score of ``3'' or 
higher on the College Board's Advanced Placement Program Exams for at 
least two of those courses.
    Reasons: We are proposing the addition of a definition of rigorous 
secondary school program of study to ensure a clear and consistent 
understanding of the term for the TS program and with other Department 
programs.

Number of Applications (Sec.  643.10)

    We discuss the statutory authority, proposed regulations, and 
reasons for adding new Sec.  643.10, Number of applications, in the 
Number of Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit to Serve Different 
Campuses and Different Populations section of the preamble.

Assurances (Current Sec.  643.10; Proposed Sec.  643.11)

    Statute: Section 402B(d)(1) of the HEA requires that, as part of 
its application, a TS grantee provide an assurance that two-thirds of 
the participants it will serve in its project will be low-income 
individuals who are first generation college students. Section 
402B(d)(3) of the HEA requires that a TS grantees provide an assurance 
that individuals participating in the project will not have access to 
services from another TS grantee or an EOC project.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  643.10 specifies what assurances 
an applicant must include in an application. This provision does not 
reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to re-number the regulations 
establishing the required assurances as Sec.  643.11 and to amend 
paragraph (a) to require that a TS grantee provide an assurance that at 
least two-thirds of the subset of participants selected for the 
rigorous academic component of the grant project will be low-income 
individuals who are potential first-generation college students.
    We are also proposing to amend paragraph (b) to require TS grantees 
to provide an assurance that they will not provide the same services to 
participants as projects funded by programs serving similar 
populations, such as GEAR UP, UB, UBMS, or EOC.
    Reasons: We are proposing to amend the TS project assurances to 
reflect the requirements of section 402B(d) of the HEA. Specifically, 
we are proposing to modify the regulations to require that at least 
two-thirds of the participants selected for the rigorous secondary 
school program of study component of the project must be low-income 
individuals who are potential first-generation college students. This 
assurance would require projects, in selecting participants for the 
rigorous secondary school program of study component, to apply the 
statutory requirement that at least two-thirds of the project 
participants be both low-income individuals and potential first-
generation college students to ensure an equitable and appropriate 
approach to participant selection.
    We are also proposing to amend the TS project assurances to require 
a grantee to provide an assurance that it will not provide the same 
services to participants that they would receive under other programs 
serving similar populations, such as GEAR UP, UB, UBMS, or EOC to avoid 
the duplication of services between a TS project and similar projects.

Making New Grants (Sec.  643.20)

    Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the HEA requires the Secretary to 
consider, when making Federal TRIO grants, each applicant's prior 
experience (PE) of high quality service delivery under the program for 
which funds are sought. Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by 
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now identifies the specific outcome 
criteria to be used to determine an entity's PE under the TS (see 
section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA). The HEA does not establish specific 
procedures for awarding PE points.
    The HEA, as amended, no longer includes provisions for awarding 
additional points to an application for a project in designated 
territories of the United States.
    Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the Secretary had the discretion to 
decide whether or not to consider an application from an applicant that 
carried out a project involving the fraudulent use of program funds. 
The HEOA amended the HEA to eliminate that discretion and prohibit the 
Secretary from considering an application from such a party.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  643.20 specifies the procedures 
the Secretary uses to award new grants.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose that the Secretary evaluate the PE 
of an applicant for each of three project years, as designated by the 
Secretary in the Federal Register notice inviting applications. We also 
propose that the Secretary may award an applicant up to 15 PE points 
for each of the three years for which the annual performance report was 
submitted. The average of the scores for the three project years would 
be the final PE score for the applicant.
    We also propose to remove Sec.  643.20(a)(3) and to amend the 
wording in Sec.  643.20(d) to specify that the Secretary will not make 
a new grant to an applicant if the applicant's prior project involved 
the fraudulent use of program funds.
    Reasons: To provide more transparency in the process the Secretary 
will use to award PE points, we are proposing to amend Sec.  
643.20(a)(2). We also are proposing to remove Sec.  643.20(a)(3) 
because there is no longer any statutory authority for this provision. 
We also are proposing to amend Sec.  643.20(d) to reflect the statutory 
change that provides that the Secretary may not consider an application 
from an applicant that carried out a project involving the fraudulent 
use of program funds.

Selection Criteria (Sec.  643.21)

    Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, requires the Secretary to use specific outcome 
criteria to measure the performance of Federal TRIO grants, including 
those under the TS program. Specifically, pursuant to section 
402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA, the Secretary must measure the performance of 
TS grants by examining the extent to which the entity met or exceeded 
the entity's objectives (as established in the entity's approved 
application) regarding--
    (1) Delivery of service to a total number of students served by the 
program;
    (2) Continued secondary school enrollment of such students;

[[Page 13833]]

    (3) Graduation of such students from secondary school with a 
regular secondary school diploma in the standard number of years;
    (4) Completion by such students of a rigorous secondary school 
program of study that will make such students eligible for grants under 
programs such as the ACG program;
    (5) Enrollment of such students in an institution of higher 
education; and
    (6) To the extent practicable, the postsecondary education 
completion of such students.
    These statutory changes necessitate changes in the grant selection 
criteria regarding ``Need for the project'' (Sec.  643.21(a)), 
``Objectives'' (Sec.  643.21(b)), and ``Plan of operation'' (Sec.  
643.21(c)).
    Further, section 403(a) of the HEOA amended section 402A of the HEA 
to eliminate the provision that limited secondary school eligibility 
for the TS program to exceptional circumstances.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  643.21 specifies the selection 
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a TS grant. 
This provision does not reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA 
applicable to the following selection criteria: Need for the project 
(Sec.  643.21(a)); Objectives (Sec.  643.21(b)); Plan of operation 
(Sec.  643.21(c)); and Applicant and community support (Sec.  
643.21(d)).
    Proposed Regulations (Need for the project): We are proposing to 
amend Sec.  643.21(a) to provide that when evaluating an application 
for a new grant the Secretary will evaluate the need for the proposed 
project. To evaluate the need for the project, we would distribute 24 
points in the following manner:
    (1) Six points for a high number or high percentage of (a) low-
income families residing in the target area, or (b) students attending 
the target schools who are eligible for free or reduced priced lunch, 
as described in sections 9(b)(1) and 17(c)(4) of the Richard B. Russell 
National School Lunch Act.
    (2) Two points for low rates of high school persistence among 
individuals in the target schools, as evidenced by the annual student 
persistence rates in the proposed target schools for the most recent 
year for which data are available.
    (3) Four points for low rates of students in the target school's 
graduating high school with a regular secondary school diploma in the 
standard number of years for the most recent year for which data are 
available.
    (4) Six points for low postsecondary enrollment and completion 
rates among individuals in the target area and schools, as evidenced by 
(a) low rates of enrollment in programs of postsecondary education by 
graduates of the target schools in the most recent year for which data 
are available, and (b) a high number or high percentage of individuals 
residing in the target area with education completion levels below the 
baccalaureate degree level.
    (5) Two points for the extent to which the target secondary schools 
do not offer their students the courses or academic support to complete 
a rigorous secondary school program of study or have low participation 
by low-income or first generation students in such courses.
    (6) Four points for other indicators of need for a TS project, 
including a high ratio of students to school counselors in the target 
schools and the presence of unaddressed academic or socio-economic 
problems of eligible individuals, including foster care youth and 
homeless children and youth, in the target schools or the target area.
    Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec.  643.21(a) (Need for the 
project) to reflect the changes made to section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the 
HEA by section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA regarding the outcome criteria to 
be used to measure the performance of TS program grantees. We are 
proposing to modify the need for the TS project selection criteria 
because we believe that the revised criteria would be consistent with 
the purpose and goals of the TS program, as reflected in the outcome 
criteria established by Congress. In the application, the applicant 
would document the extent of the need for the proposed TS project in 
the proposed target area and would provide baseline data for the new 
outcome criteria that the applicant would use to establish project 
objectives that are ambitious and attainable.
    In addition, based on concerns expressed by some non-Federal 
negotiators during the negotiated rulemaking sessions regarding the 
availability of reliable data from the target schools for purposes of 
calculating some of the need criteria, the proposed regulations would 
give applicants options for providing the number or percentage of low-
income individuals in the proposed target area. To meet this 
requirement the applicant may provide data on either the number or the 
percentage of low-income families residing in the target area or the 
number or percentage of students attending the target schools who are 
eligible for free or reduced priced lunch. Further, to reduce burden, 
an applicant would only need to provide data on high school 
persistence, graduation, and postsecondary enrollment for the most 
recent year for which data are available; current regulations require 
data for the three most recent years.
    The proposed regulations would also address a concern some non-
Federal negotiators raised about the current requirement that an 
applicant provide data to show a high student dropout rate in the 
proposed target schools in the preceding three years. These non-Federal 
negotiators expressed concern that this provision could penalize 
applicants with existing projects that serve target schools that have 
already improved their dropout rates. We are not proposing to remove 
the dropout rate from the criteria. However, in light of the new 
statutory outcome criteria related to the ``continued secondary school 
enrollment of participants,'' we have also included a criterion that 
requires the applicant to provide data on the annual high school 
persistence rates of students in the proposed target schools.
    Proposed Regulations (Objectives): We are proposing to amend Sec.  
643.21(b) to provide that, in evaluating applications for TS grants, 
the Secretary consider the quality of the applicant's proposed 
objectives on the basis of the extent to which they are both ambitious 
and attainable, given the project's plan of operation, budget, and 
other resources. We propose to distribute eight points for this 
criterion in the following manner:
    (1) Two points for secondary school persistence.
    (2) Two points for secondary school graduation (regular secondary 
school diploma).
    (3) One point for secondary school graduation (rigorous secondary 
school program of study).
    (4) Two points for postsecondary education enrollment.
    (5) One point for postsecondary degree attainment.
    Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec.  643.21(b) (Objectives) to 
reflect the changes made to section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA by section 
403(a)(5) of the HEOA regarding the outcome criteria to be used to 
measure performance of the TS program. We are proposing to reflect the 
statutory TS outcome criteria in Sec.  643.21(b) as selection criteria 
because we believe that the focus at the outset of the TS discretionary 
grant process (i.e., evaluating applications using TS selection 
criteria) should be on the ultimate outcomes the TS program is intended 
to attain.
    Moreover, during the grant period, section 402A(f)(4) of the HEA 
requires that the Secretary measure the performance of the grantee 
based on a comparison of the targets agreed upon for the outcome 
criteria established in

[[Page 13834]]

the applicant's approved application to the actual results achieved 
during the grant period. For these reasons, we believe it is 
appropriate to use the outcome criteria from section 402A(f)(3)(A) of 
the HEA in the selection criteria for the TS program.
    Outcome criteria are also used to evaluate an applicant's PE and to 
assign PE points to an application. We discuss the statutory authority, 
current regulations, proposed regulations, and reasons for changes to 
evaluating an applicant's PE in the Evaluating Prior Experience--
Outcome Criteria section of the preamble.
    Proposed Regulations (Plan of operation): We are proposing to amend 
Sec.  643.21(c) to provide that the Secretary, in evaluating an 
application for a TS grant, evaluate the quality of the applicant's 
proposed plan of operation as one of the selection criteria. We would 
distribute thirty points for this criteria in the following manner:
    (1) Three points for the plan to inform the residents, schools, and 
community organizations in the target area of the purpose, objectives, 
and services of the project and the eligibility requirements for 
participation in the project.
    (2) Three points for the plan to identify and select eligible 
project participants, including the project's plan and criteria for 
selecting individuals who would receive support to complete a rigorous 
secondary school program of study.
    (3) Ten points for the plan for providing the services delineated 
in Sec.  643.4 as appropriate based on the project's assessment of each 
participant's need for services.
    (4) Six points for the plan to provide services to students in need 
of services to complete a rigorous secondary school program of study.
    (5) Six points for the plan to ensure the proper and efficient 
administration of the project, including timelines, personnel, and 
other resources, and the project's organizational structure; the time 
commitment of key project staff; financial, personnel, and records 
management; and, where appropriate, coordination with other programs 
for disadvantaged youth.
    (6) Two points for the plan to follow former participants as they 
enter, continue in, and complete postsecondary education.
    Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec.  643.21(c) (Plan of 
operation) to reflect the changes made to section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the 
HEA by section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA regarding the outcome criteria to 
be used to measure performance of the TS program. We are proposing to 
include the revised TS plan of operation criteria in Sec.  643.21(c) as 
a selection criteria because the revised criteria would be consistent 
with the purpose and goals of the TS program outcome criteria. The 
requested information would document the project's plans with regard to 
the criteria relating to a rigorous secondary school program of study 
and for following the academic progress of former participants through 
postsecondary education.
    Proposed Regulations (Applicant and community support): We are 
proposing to amend Sec.  643.21(d) to require written commitments from 
institutions of higher education, in addition to the current 
requirement for written commitments from schools and community 
organizations, to provide resources to supplement the grant and enhance 
project services.
    Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec.  643.21(d) (Applicant and 
community support) to reflect the changes made to section 402A(b)(1) of 
the HEA by section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, which eliminated the 
limitation on the eligibility of secondary schools for TS grants. We 
agreed with some of the non-Federal members of the negotiated 
rulemaking committee who expressed concern that the current selection 
criterion that requires applicants to have written commitments from 
schools, community organization, and others may provide an advantage to 
secondary schools or community organization applicants for TS grants 
over institutions of higher education. Without a change, institutions 
of higher education applying for a TS grant would have to get letters 
of commitment from their potential competitors for grants while 
secondary schools and community organizations would not have a similar 
requirement. To ensure a fair and equitable competition and to ensure 
that schools and community organizations have the full scope of 
partners necessary to provide appropriate services, we would require 
those applicants to get letters of commitment from institutions of 
higher education.

Prior Experience Criteria (Sec.  643.22)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for changes to the PE criteria in the 
Evaluating Prior Experience--Outcome Criteria section of the preamble.

Amount of a Grant (Sec.  643.23)

    Statute: Section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(1) of the HEOA, increased the minimum TS grant from $180,000 to 
$200,000.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  643.23 specifies how the 
Secretary sets the amount of a TS grant. This provision does not 
reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the regulations to 
update the statutory minimum grant amount.
    Reasons: We are proposing this change to reflect the changes to 
section 402A(b)(3) of the HEA by section 403(a)(3) of the HEOA.

Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants (New 
Sec.  643.24)

    We discuss the statutory authority, proposed regulations, and 
reasons for adding new Sec.  643.24 in the Review Process for 
Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Applicants section of the preamble.

Allowable and Unallowable Costs (Sec. Sec.  643.30 and 643.31)

Transportation, Equipment and Supplies, and Tuition

    Statute: Section 403A(b) of the HEOA amended section 403B(b) of the 
HEA and expanded the list of services a TS grantee may provide to 
include instruction in reading, writing, study skills, mathematics, 
science, and other subjects. Section 403A(b) of the HEOA amended 
sections 402A and 402B of the HEA and included outcome criteria to 
evaluate the quality and effectiveness of TS projects. The new outcome 
criteria require that TS projects report data on the graduation of 
participants from secondary school with a regular high school diploma 
in the standard number of years, the completion by participants of a 
rigorous secondary school program of study that would make them 
eligible for grants under the ACG program, and the completion by 
participants of postsecondary education.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  643.30 permits a TS project to 
use grant funds to pay certain costs. Current Sec.  643.30(a) permits a 
grantee to pay some participant transportation costs. Current Sec.  
643.30(f) requires a grantee to obtain approval from the Department to 
purchase computers and other equipment. Current Sec.  643.31(a) 
prohibits the payment of tuition for participants.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  643.30(a)(4) 
to permit a TS grantee, under certain circumstances, to pay the 
transportation costs for a participant receiving instruction that is 
part of a rigorous secondary school program of study. We also are 
proposing to revise Sec.  643.30 (f) and add paragraph (g) to allow 
grantees to use grant funds for the purchase,

[[Page 13835]]

lease, or rental of computer hardware that supports the delivery of 
services to participants, including technology used by participants in 
a rigorous secondary school program of study, and for project 
administration and recordkeeping.
    We are proposing to add paragraph (h) to Sec.  643.30 to permit a 
TS grantee to pay tuition, under certain circumstances, for a 
participant to take a course that is part of a rigorous secondary 
school program of study. Specifically, we propose to allow TS funds to 
be used to pay tuition costs for a course that is part of a rigorous 
secondary school program of study if--
    (1) The course or a similar course is not offered at the secondary 
school that the participant attends or at another school within the 
participant's school district;
    (2) The grantee demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction that 
using grant funds to pay for tuition is the most cost-effective way to 
deliver the course or courses necessary for the completion of a 
rigorous secondary school program of study for program participants;
    (3) The course is taken at an institution of higher education;
    (4) The course is comparable in content and rigor to courses that 
are part of a rigorous secondary school program of study as defined in 
Sec.  643.7(b);
    (5) The secondary school accepts the course as meeting one or more 
of the course requirements for obtaining a high school diploma;
    (6) A waiver of the tuition costs is unavailable;
    (7) The tuition is paid with TS grant funds to an institution of 
higher education on behalf of a participant; and
    (8) The TS project pays for no more than the equivalent of two 
courses for a participant each school year.
    We also propose to drop ``tuition'' from the list of unallowable 
costs in Sec.  643.31(a).
    During the negotiated rulemaking sessions, many of the non-Federal 
negotiators noted that they had data to demonstrate that participants 
in TS projects needed tuition support to complete a rigorous program of 
study. In light of these statements we are seeking public comments and 
data on the need to permit TS projects to pay tuition for participants 
to take courses that are part of a rigorous secondary school program of 
study. We are requesting data on the availability of rigorous 
coursework offerings at target schools or in target areas, which may 
include, but are not limited to: The number of schools or districts 
within the State that do not provide rigorous curricula; the number of 
students who do not have access to the rigorous coursework or do not 
take rigorous courses available to them; and student demographic data 
on rigorous course-taking patterns in the target schools or areas.
    We are also requesting information on how the lack of access to 
rigorous programs has impacted the educational opportunities available 
to individuals served by TS projects. We are also requesting cost 
estimates, based on existing TS projects, as to the amount and 
percentage of the project budget that might be used for tuition, if 
allowable, and the estimated number of participants that might benefit 
each year from this service. We may reexamine the need for or scope of 
this proposal based on the comments and data that we receive.
    Reasons: Based on comments and information we received during the 
negotiated rulemaking sessions we believe that it is appropriate for 
grantees to use TS funds to pay for computer equipment and software. 
Authorizing this use of funds will permit grantees to deliver services 
more efficiently. We believe that prior approval for these expenditures 
is no longer necessary. With the new statutory outcome criterion 
related to a rigorous course of study, a TS project also may need to 
rent, lease, or purchase technology used by participants in a rigorous 
academic program.
    Some non-Federal negotiators recommended revisions to the TS 
regulations to allow grantees to pay transportation and tuition costs 
for participants who are trying to complete a rigorous secondary school 
program of study when the course or courses are not offered at the 
secondary school the participant attends or at another school within 
the school district.
    A number of legal and policy concerns were discussed regarding this 
provision. A significant policy concern discussed was whether TS is the 
appropriate mechanism for addressing the lack of rigorous courses in 
some secondary schools given other new Federal initiatives and funding 
to help all school districts provide a rigorous program of study. Also 
of concern was the potential cost of this provision and whether this 
would result in TS projects being able to serve fewer students.
    At the final negotiated rulemaking session, the Department noted 
that we could consider authorizing the use of funds to pay tuition, but 
that we needed more data on the issue before we would consider 
including this authority in the regulations. We pointed out the Federal 
policy goal that every secondary school should offer a rigorous program 
of study to its students. We also noted that other Federal programs 
support the establishment of rigorous programs of study. Accordingly, 
we were not convinced that the limited TS funds should be used for this 
purpose. The non-Federal negotiators disagreed, stating that it is 
unreasonable to measure the performance of a TS grantee on the extent 
to which participants complete a rigorous secondary school program of 
study if a grantee cannot use project funds to support this activity. 
The non-Federal negotiators also provided examples of areas and target 
schools served by TS projects that lack courses needed to meet the 
State standards for a rigorous secondary school program of study. If TS 
projects serving these areas could not provide participants with access 
to these courses, the non-Federal negotiators opined, some TS 
participants would be denied the opportunity to qualify for ACG funds. 
They also noted that research has shown that students who take rigorous 
coursework in high school are more likely to enter and complete 
postsecondary education.
    After further consideration, we understand that the availability of 
rigorous coursework may be an issue in some schools and communities 
served by TS projects and, thus, we have reconsidered our position on 
this issue. We propose to include, under certain conditions, the 
payment of tuition for courses that would allow project participants to 
complete a rigorous secondary school program of study. Providing 
opportunities for high school students to complete a rigorous secondary 
school program of study is important to ensuring opportunity and 
success in postsecondary education.
    Nonetheless, we need data to understand the extent to which areas 
and schools served by TS projects lack rigorous coursework. Further, we 
need data to perform cost-benefit analyses that help us determine 
whether to permit the use of limited TS grant funds for this purpose. 
We cannot base policy decisions on the appropriate use of limited 
program funds on anecdotal evidence. The TS program has a national 
scope, and we must consider the cost implications of this proposal. The 
use of TS funds for tuition and other related costs would reduce the 
availability of funding for other program services and would reduce the 
number of participants that could be served by a TS project. 
Additionally, as the Department seeks improvements in education, we 
need to ensure that Federal programs are used in a coordinated way to 
leverage educational reform and opportunities that would benefit all 
students. Therefore, we are

[[Page 13836]]

requesting that commenters provide us with information and data 
regarding the tuition provisions in these proposed regulations.
    To ensure that TS funds are only used to pay tuition in exceptional 
situations, the proposed regulations would permit the payment of 
tuition for courses that are part of a rigorous secondary school 
program of study only if the: course to be taken by the participant or 
a similar course is not offered in the school district; the participant 
takes the course at an institution of higher education; the course is 
comparable in rigor to courses that are part of the State's rigorous 
secondary school program of study; and the course is accepted by the 
participant's secondary school as meeting one or more of the course 
requirements for a high school diploma. We would also require an 
applicant proposing to use TS funds for tuition to provide detailed 
information in their application on the appropriateness and cost 
effectiveness of using the TS funds for this purpose.

What Other Requirements Must a Grantee Meet? (Sec.  643.32)

Changes to Number of Participants (643.32(b))

    Statute: Section 402A(b)(3) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, 
establishes a minimum grant of $200,000 for TS. The HEA does not 
specify the number of participants a project must serve.
    Current Regulations: Section 643.32(b) requires a TS project to 
serve a minimum of 600 participants; the Secretary may reduce this 
number if the amount of the grant for the budget period is less than 
$180,000, which was the minimum TS grant amount prior to the HEOA 
amendments.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  643.32(b) to 
remove the current requirement that a TS grantee serve a specific 
minimum number of participants and to redesignate the paragraphs that 
follow.
    Reasons: We are proposing to remove the minimum number of 
participants from regulations so the Department has flexibility in each 
competition to establish the number of participants, and to adjust 
these numbers in subsequent competitions based on experience, cost 
analyses, and other factors.
    The Department is committed to encouraging TS grantees to identify 
and adopt the most cost-effective strategies for disadvantaged youth to 
complete secondary school programs, enroll in or reenter education 
programs at the postsecondary level, and complete postsecondary 
education programs. The Department intends to design future TS grant 
competitions to achieve this objective. Future grant competition 
notices will set parameters that are consistent with the statute to 
encourage adoption of cost effective practices using the best available 
evidence. This may include setting a minimum number of program 
participants for each competition to promote adoption of cost-effective 
practices.
    We intend to stipulate the minimum and maximum grant award amounts 
and to address the number of participants a TS project will be expected 
to serve each year of the grant cycle through the Federal Register 
notice inviting applications for the competition. We also intend to 
establish a per-participant cost in the Federal Register notice to be 
used to determine the amount of the grant for an applicant proposing to 
serve fewer participants than required for the minimum grant award for 
the competition.

Changes to Recordkeeping Requirements (Sec.  643.32(b))

    Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the HEA, as amended by 
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, includes a new outcome criterion for TS 
that requires projects to report on participants who complete a 
rigorous secondary school program of study.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  643.32(c) specifies the 
recordkeeping requirements for TS grantees. This provision does not 
reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the goals and services of the 
TS program.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to redesignate current 
paragraph (c) as (b) and to amend newly redesignated Sec.  643.32(b) to 
include new recordkeeping requirements for TS program participants in a 
rigorous secondary school program of study.
    Reasons: We are proposing to amend the recordkeeping requirements 
to reflect the changes made to the TS program by the HEOA. The proposed 
change to the regulations is also consistent with the recommendation of 
the non-Federal negotiators during the negotiated rulemaking sessions 
to require a grantee to keep a list of courses taken by participants 
who are enrolled in a rigorous secondary school program of study. This 
change would ensure that a TS project grantee maintain the 
documentation needed to determine that participants in a rigorous 
secondary school program of study have taken the courses needed to 
qualify for ACG grants, as required by section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the 
HEA.

Changes to Full-Time Director Requirement (Sec.  643.32(d))

    Statute: Section 402A(c)(6) of the HEA requires that the Secretary 
permit the Director of a Federal TRIO program to administer one or more 
additional programs for disadvantaged students.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  643.32(d) requires a grantee to 
employ a full-time project director unless the grantee requests a 
waiver.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  643.32(d) to 
amend the provision that required a grantee to have a full time Project 
Director unless the project met certain conditions and requested a 
waiver. Specifically, under the proposed regulations, a waiver would 
not be required for a Director who is less than full-time on the 
project if the Director is also administering one or two additional 
programs for disadvantaged students. A grantee would have to request a 
waiver of the full-time director requirement for the Director to 
administer more than three programs.
    Reasons: The proposed regulations would be consistent with section 
402A(c)(6) of the HEA. In addition, the change would reduce the 
administrative burden on grantees by eliminating the requirement that a 
grantee request a waiver of the full-time director requirement under 
certain circumstances.

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC), 34 CFR Part 644

Changes to the EOC Program Purpose (Sec.  644.1)

    Statute: Section 403(f)(1)(C) of the HEOA amended section 402F(a) 
of the HEA and modified the purposes of the EOC program.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  644.1 specifies the purpose of 
the EOC program. This provision does not reflect the changes made by 
the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend Sec.  644.1 by adding a 
new paragraph (c) containing the following text: ``To improve the 
financial literacy and economic literacy of participants on topics such 
as basic personal income, household money management, and financial 
planning skills and basic economic decision-making skills.''
    Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec.  644.1 to reflect 
the changes made by the HEOA to the EOC program authority statement in 
section 402F(a) of the HEA.

Applicant Eligibility (Sec.  644.2)

    Statute: Section 402A(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by section

[[Page 13837]]

403(a)(1)(A) of the HEOA lists the types of entities that are eligible 
for EOC grants. Prior to enactment of the HEOA, a secondary school 
could apply for an EOC grant under ``exceptional circumstances.'' The 
HEOA eliminates this limitation on the eligibility of a secondary 
school. Further, the HEOA defines public and private agencies and 
organizations that may apply for a grant to include community-based 
organizations with experience in serving disadvantaged youth.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  644.2 specifies who is eligible 
to apply for an EOC grant. This provision does not reflect the changes 
made to applicant eligibility by the HEOA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  644.2 to 
conform to the statutory changes to applicant eligibility. Under the 
proposed regulations, a secondary school would be able to apply for an 
EOC grant without having to demonstrate ``exceptional circumstances.'' 
In addition, a community-based organization with experience in serving 
disadvantaged youth may apply for a grant.
    Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec.  644.2 to conform 
to the changes made by the HEOA in applicant eligibility in section 
402A(b)(1) of the HEA.

Required and Permissible Services (Sec.  644.4)

    Statute: Section 403(f)(2) of the HEOA amended section 402F(b) of 
the HEA, which defines the permissible services or activities in the 
EOC program. As amended, the HEA lists certain services or activities 
that projects funded under the program may provide.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  644.4 specifies what services an 
EOC project may provide. This provision does not reflect the changes 
made by the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  644.4 and add 
to the permissible services that projects may provide under the EOC 
program in accordance with the changes made by the HEOA. Specifically, 
we propose to remove personal counseling services from the list of 
permissible services and replace it with individualized personal, 
career, and academic counseling services. We are also proposing to 
specify that permissible services includes programs and activities 
described in Sec.  644.4 that are specially designed for participants 
who are limited English proficient, participants from groups that are 
traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education, participants 
who are individuals with disabilities, participants who are homeless 
children and youth, participants who are foster care youth, or other 
disconnected participants. Finally, we are proposing to add education 
or counseling services designed to improve the financial literacy and 
economic literacy of participants to the list of permissible services 
for EOC projects.
    Reasons: The proposed regulations would amend Sec.  644.4 to revise 
the list of services that EOC projects are allowed to provide to 
conform with section 402F(b) of the HEA.

Project Period (Sec.  644.5)

    Statute: Section 402A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(1)(B)(i) of the HEOA, provides that all EOC grants are for five 
years. Prior to enactment of the HEOA, EOC grants were awarded for four 
years, except for applicants whose peer review scores were in the 
highest 10 percent of the scores of all applicants; those applicants 
received five-year grants.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  644.5 specifies the length of an 
EOC project period. This provision does not reflect the change made by 
the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise the regulations to 
define the project period under the EOC program as five years for all 
grantees.
    Reasons: The change is made to conform Sec.  644.5 with section 
402A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA.

Applicable Regulations (Sec.  644.6)

    Statute: None.
    Current Regulations: Section 644.6 specifies which regulations 
apply to the EOC program. This provision contains an outdated list of 
applicable regulations.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to update the list of 
regulations that apply to the EOC program. We also propose excluding 
Sec. Sec.  75.215 through 75.221 from the list of regulations that 
apply.
    Reasons: We discuss the reasons for the changes in the Applicable 
Regulations for the Training program section of the preamble.

Definitions (Sec.  644.7)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for changes to the definitions of institution 
of higher education and veteran and for the addition of definitions of 
different population, financial and economic literacy, foster care 
youth, homeless children and youth, and individual with disabilities in 
the Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO Program 
section of the preamble.

Number of Applications (New Sec.  644.10)

    We discuss the statutory authority, proposed regulations, and 
reasons for adding new Sec.  644.10, Number of applications, in the 
Number of Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit to Serve Different 
Campuses and Different Populations section of the preamble.

Assurances (Current Sec.  644.10, Proposed Sec.  644.11)

    Statute: Section 402F(c)(3) of the HEA requires that EOC grantees 
provide an assurance that individuals participating in the project do 
not have access to services from another EOC or a TS project.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  644.10 specifies what assurances 
an applicant must include in an application.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to re-number the regulations 
establishing the required assurances as Sec.  644.11 and to revise 
paragraph (b) to require EOC grantees to provide an assurance that they 
will not provide the same services to participants as projects funded 
by programs serving similar populations, such as Veterans Upward Bound 
(VUB), and TS.
    Reasons: We are proposing to amend the EOC project assurances to 
prohibit EOC projects from providing the same services to participants 
that the participants would receive under other programs serving 
similar populations, such as VUB and TS, to avoid the duplication of 
services between an EOC project and similar projects.

Making New Grants (Sec.  644.20)

    Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the HEA requires the Secretary to 
consider, when making Federal TRIO grants, each applicant's prior 
experience (PE) of high quality service delivery under the program for 
which funds are sought. Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by 
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now identifies the specific outcome 
criteria to be used to determine an entity's PE under the EOC (see 
section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA). The HEA does not establish specific 
procedures for awarding PE points.
    The HEA, as amended, no longer includes provisions for awarding 
additional points to an application for a project in designated 
territories of the United States.
    Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the Secretary had the discretion to 
decide whether or not to consider an application from an applicant that 
carried out a project involving the

[[Page 13838]]

fraudulent use of program funds. The HEOA amended the HEA to eliminate 
that discretion and prohibit the Secretary from considering an 
application from such a party.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  644.20 specifies the procedures 
the Secretary uses to make new grants. Section 644.20(a)(2) needs to be 
expanded to specify the procedures the Secretary will use to award PE 
points.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  644.20 would be expanded to 
specify the procedures the Secretary would use to award PE points. We 
are proposing that the Secretary evaluate the PE of an applicant for 
each of three project years as designated by the Secretary in the 
Federal Register notice inviting applications. We also propose that an 
applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the three years for 
which the annual performance report was submitted. The average of the 
scores for the three project years will be the final PE score for the 
applicant.
    We also propose to remove Sec.  644.20(a)(3) and to amend the 
wording in Sec.  644.20(d) to specify that the Secretary will not make 
a new grant to an applicant if the applicant's prior project involved 
the fraudulent use of program funds.
    Reasons: To provide more transparency in the process the Secretary 
will use to award PE points, we are proposing to amend Sec.  
644.20(a)(2). We also are proposing to remove Sec.  644.20(a)(3) 
because there is no longer statutory authority for this provision and 
to amend Sec.  644.20(d) to reflect the statutory change that provides 
that the Secretary may not consider an application from an applicant 
that carried out a project involving the fraudulent use of program 
funds.

Selection Criteria (Sec.  644.21)

    Statute: Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, requires the Secretary to use specific outcome 
criteria to measure the performance of Federal TRIO grants, including 
those under the EOC program. Specifically, pursuant to section 
402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA, the Secretary must measure the performance of 
EOC grantees by examining the extent to which the grantee met or 
exceeded the grantee's objectives (as established in the entity's 
approved application) regarding: (1) The enrollment of students without 
a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent and who were 
served by the program in programs leading to a diploma or its 
equivalent; (2) the enrollment of secondary school graduates who were 
served by the program in programs of postsecondary education; (3) the 
delivery of services to the total number of students served by the 
program, as agreed to by the entity and the Secretary; and (4) the 
provision of assistance to students served by the program in completing 
financial aid applications and college admission applications. These 
statutory changes necessitate a change in the grant selection criteria 
for ``Objectives'' (Sec.  644.21(b)).
    Further, section 402A(b) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(1) of the HEOA, eliminated the ``in exceptional circumstances 
clause'' that limited secondary school eligibility to apply for an EOC 
grant. This statutory change necessitates a change in the grant 
selection criteria regarding ``Applicant and community support'' (Sec.  
644.21(d)).
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  644.21 specifies the selection 
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for an EOC 
grant. This provision does not reflect the changes made by the HEOA to 
the HEA applicable to the following selection criteria: Objectives 
(Sec.  644.21(b)) and Applicant and community support (Sec.  
644.21(d)).
    Proposed Regulations (Objectives): We are proposing to amend Sec.  
644.21(b) to provide that, in evaluating applications for EOC grants, 
the Secretary will consider the quality of the applicant's proposed 
objectives and proposed targets (percentages) on the basis of the 
extent to which they are both ambitious and attainable, given the 
project's plan of operation, budget, and other resources. We propose to 
distribute eight points for this criterion in the following manner: (1) 
Two points for enrollment of participants who do not have a secondary 
school diploma or its recognized equivalent in programs leading to a 
secondary school diploma or its equivalent; (2) four points for 
postsecondary enrollment; (3) one point for applying for student 
financial aid assistance; and (4) one point for students applying for 
college admission assistance.
    Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec.  644.21(b) to reflect the 
changes made to section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA by section 403(a)(5) 
of the HEOA regarding the outcome criteria to be used to measure the 
performance of the EOC program. We are proposing to reflect the 
statutory EOC outcome criteria in Sec.  644.21(b) as selection criteria 
because we believe that the focus of the process of selecting EOC grant 
applications should be on the ultimate outcomes the EOC program is 
designed to attain.
    Moreover, during the grant period, section 402A(f)(4) of the HEA 
requires the Secretary to measure the performance of the grantee based 
on a comparison of the targets agreed upon for the outcome criteria 
established in the applicant's approved application to the actual 
results achieved during the grant period. For this reason, we believe 
it is appropriate to use the outcome criteria from section 
402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA as the selection criteria for the EOC program.
    Outcome criteria are also used to evaluate an applicant's PE and to 
assign PE points to an application. We discuss the statutory authority, 
current regulations, proposed regulations, and reasons for changes to 
evaluating an applicant's PE in the Evaluating Prior Experience--
Outcome Criteria section of the preamble.
    Proposed Regulations (Applicant and community support): We are 
proposing to amend Sec.  644.21(d) to require written commitments from 
institutions of higher education, in addition to the current 
requirement for written commitments from schools and community 
organizations, to provide resources to supplement the grant and enhance 
project services. In paragraph (d) of this section, we also clarify 
that the current requirement for written commitments applies to 
secondary schools by adding the word ``secondary'' to the regulations.
    Reasons: We discuss the reasons for the proposed changes to the 
Selection Criteria--Applicant and Community Support in the TS section 
of the preamble.

Prior Experience Criteria (Sec.  644.22)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for changes to the PE criteria in the TRIO 
Outcome Criteria--Prior Experience section of the preamble.

Amount of a Grant (Sec.  644.23)

    Statute: Section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(1)(C) of the HEOA, increased the minimum EOC grant from $180,000 
to $200,000.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  644.23 specifies how the 
Secretary sets the amount of a grant. This provision does not reflect 
the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the regulations to 
update the statutory minimum grant amount to $200,000.
    Reasons: We are proposing this change to reflect the changes to 
section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA by section 403(a)(1)(C) of the HEOA.

[[Page 13839]]

Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants (New 
Sec.  644.24)

    We discuss the statutory authority, proposed regulations, and 
reasons for adding a new review process for unsuccessful applicants, in 
the Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants 
section of the preamble.

Allowable Costs (Sec.  644.30)

    Statute: The statute does not specifically address allowable costs 
in the EOC program.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  644.30 allows EOC funds to be 
used for participant field trips for observing persons employed in 
various career fields only if the trips are within the target area. 
Current Sec.  644.30 requires a grantee to obtain prior approval from 
the Secretary to use program funds to purchase computer and other 
equipment.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise Sec.  644.30(a)(3) 
by removing the words ``in the target area'' and by rewording the 
paragraph for clarity; we also are proposing to revise Sec.  644.30(f) 
to allow grantees to use program funds for the purchase, lease, or 
rental of computer hardware, computer software, or other equipment for 
participant development, project administration, or project 
recordkeeping without requesting prior approval.
    Reasons: We discuss the reasons for permitting EOC grantees to 
purchase computer equipment without prior approval in the Changes to 
the Allowable Costs section of the TS part of this preamble. We also 
believe that career field trips should not be limited to the grant 
target area, as this might limit EOC participants' exposure to various 
careers.

Other Requirements of a Grantee (Sec.  644.32)

Changes to Number of Participants (Sec.  644.32(b))

    Statute: The HEA does not stipulate the number of participants a 
project must serve.
    Current Regulations: Section 644.32(b) requires an EOC project to 
serve a minimum of 1,000 participants; however, the Secretary may 
reduce this number if the amount of the grant for the budget period is 
less than $180,000 (which was the minimum grant amount in the EOC 
program prior to enactment of the HEOA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  644.32(b) to 
remove the requirement that an EOC grantee serve a minimum number of 
participants.
    Reasons: We are proposing to remove from the regulations the 
requirement that an EOC grantee serve a minimum number of participants 
to give the Department flexibility to establish the number of 
participants to be served based on the available resources for each 
competition and to adjust these amounts for subsequent competitions 
based on experience. We intend to stipulate the minimum and maximum 
grant award amounts and address the number of participants an EOC 
project is expected to serve each year of the grant cycle through the 
Federal Register notice inviting applications for the competition. The 
Federal Register notice would also establish a per participant cost to 
be used to determine the amount of the grant for an applicant proposing 
to serve fewer participants than required for the minimum grant award 
for the competition.

Changes to Full-Time Director Requirement (Old Sec.  644.32(d); New 
Sec.  644.32(c))

    Statute: Section 402A(c)(6) of the HEA requires that the Secretary 
permit the Director of a Federal TRIO program to administer one or more 
additional programs for disadvantaged students.
    Current Regulations: Section 644.32(d) requires a grantee to employ 
a full-time project director unless the grantee requests a waiver.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose to reorganize section 644.32 by 
removing paragraph (d), redesignating Sec.  644.32(c) as Sec.  
644.32(b), and adding a new Sec.  644.32(c). The new Sec.  644.32(c) 
would include some of the provisions in current Sec.  644.32(d), but 
would not include the requirement that a grantee request a waiver if 
the Project director is administering one or two additional programs 
for disadvantaged students. Specifically, a grantee would not need a 
waiver from the Secretary to have a director that is less than full-
time on the project if the director is also administering one or two 
additional programs for disadvantaged students. Under the proposed 
regulation, however, a grantee would be required to request a waiver of 
the full-time director requirement for the director to administer more 
than three programs.
    Reasons: We discuss the reasons for permitting the Director of a 
Federal TRIO program to administer one or more additional programs for 
disadvantaged students in the Changes to Full-Time Director Requirement 
in the TS section of the preamble.

Upward Bound (UB) Program, 34 CFR Part 645

Applicant Eligibility (Sec.  645.2)

    Statute: Section 402A(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(1)(A) of the HEOA, lists the types of entities that are eligible 
for UB grants. Prior to enactment of the HEOA, a secondary school would 
be eligible to apply for a UB grant if it could show ``exceptional 
circumstances.'' The HEOA eliminates this limitation. Further, the HEOA 
defines public and private agencies and organizations that may apply 
for a grant to include community-based organizations with experience in 
serving disadvantaged youth.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  645.2 specifies who is eligible 
to apply for an UB grant. This provision does not reflect the changes 
made to applicant eligibility by the HEOA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  645.2 to 
conform to the statutory changes to applicant eligibility. As with 
other eligible applicants, a secondary school may apply for an UB grant 
without having to demonstrate ``exceptional circumstances.'' In 
addition, under proposed Sec.  645.2, a community-based organization 
with experience in serving disadvantaged youth may apply.
    Reasons: We are proposing to amend current Sec.  645.2 to conform 
to section 402A(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA.

Grantee Requirements (Sec.  645.4)

    Statute: Section 402A(e)(1) and (2) of the HEA provides lists of 
acceptable documentation of a participant's status as a low-income 
individual. The HEOA made no substantive changes to this section of the 
statute.
    Current Regulations: Section 645.4(a) duplicates requirements in 
Sec.  645.21. In addition, the heading for Sec.  645.4 is not 
descriptive of the requirements in it.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to remove Sec.  645.4(a) of 
the current regulations and redesignate the paragraphs that follow. We 
also propose to revise the section heading to read as follows: ``What 
are the grantee requirements for documenting the low-income and first-
generation status of participants?''
    Reasons: Except for paragraph (a), the current regulation reflects 
the statutory requirements for documenting a participant's low-income 
and potential first-generation status. Therefore, we are proposing to 
revise the heading for this section to clearly describe the grantee's 
documentation requirements with regard to participant eligibility. We 
are proposing to remove paragraph (a) of

[[Page 13840]]

this section because it duplicates requirements in Sec.  645.21.

Applicable Regulations (Sec.  645.5)

    Statute: None.
    Current Regulations: Section 645.5(a) contains an outdated list of 
applicable regulations.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to update the list of 
regulations that apply to the UB program. We also propose to 
specifically exclude 34 CFR 75.215 through 75.221 from the list of 
applicable regulations that apply.
    Reasons: We discuss the reasons for the changes in the Applicable 
Regulations for the Training program section of the preamble.

Definitions (Sec.  645.6)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for changes to the definitions of institution 
of higher education and veteran and for the addition of different 
population, financial and economic literacy, foster care youth, 
homeless children and youth, and individual with disabilities in the 
Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO Program section of 
the preamble. In addition, we propose to include definitions for two 
terms applicable to both the TS and UB programs (regular secondary 
school diploma and rigorous secondary school program of study) and two 
terms applicable to new UB requirements (individual who has a high risk 
for academic failure and veteran who has a high risk for academic 
failure).

Regular Secondary School Diploma

    Statute: Section 402C(b) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(c)(1) of the HEOA, requires a UB grantee to provide: ``guidance on 
and assistance in alternative education programs for secondary school 
dropouts that lead to the receipt of a regular secondary school 
diploma.''
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  645.6(b) to 
include a definition of regular secondary school diploma. The proposed 
regulations would define regular secondary school diploma to mean a 
level attained by individuals who meet or exceed the coursework and 
performance standards for high school completion established by the 
individual's State.
    Reasons: We discuss the reasons for this new definition in the 
Definitions in the TS section of the preamble.

Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study

    Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(B)(v) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, includes a new outcome criterion for UB that 
requires the Secretary to consider to the extent to which a grantee met 
or exceeded its objectives on project participants that complete a 
rigorous secondary school program of study that will make such students 
eligible for programs such as the ACG program.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the definitions in 
Sec.  645.6(b) to include a definition of rigorous secondary school 
program of study. The proposed regulations would define rigorous 
secondary school program of study to mean a program of study that is--
    (1) Established by a State educational agency (SEA) or local 
educational agency (LEA) and recognized as a rigorous secondary school 
program of study by the Secretary through the process described in 34 
CFR Sec.  691.16(a) through Sec.  691.16(c) for the ACG Program;
    (2) An advanced or honors secondary school program established by 
States and in existence for the 2004-2005 school year or later school 
years;
    (3) Any secondary school program in which a student successfully 
completes at a minimum the following courses:
    (i) Four years of English.
    (ii) Three years of mathematics, including algebra I and a higher-
level class such as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and 
statistics.
    (iii) Three years of science, including one year each of at least 
two of the following courses: biology, chemistry, and physics.
    (iv) Three years of social studies.
    (v) One year of a language other than English;
    (4) A secondary school program identified by a State-level 
partnership that is recognized by the State Scholars Initiative of the 
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), Boulder, 
Colorado;
    (5) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at 
least two courses from an International Baccalaureate Diploma Program 
sponsored by the International Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva, 
Switzerland, and receives a score of a ``4'' or higher on the 
examinations for at least two of those courses; or
    (6) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at 
least two Advanced Placement courses and receives a score of ``3'' or 
higher on the College Board's Advanced Placement Program Exams for at 
least two of those courses.
    Reasons: We discuss the reasons for this new definition in the 
Definitions in the TS section of the preamble. Individual who has a 
high risk for academic failure and veteran who has a high risk for 
academic failure
    Statute: The HEOA amended section 402C(e)(2) of the HEA to include 
``students who have a high risk for academic failure'' as a group 
eligible to be served by an UB project.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to add a definition of an 
individual who has a high risk for academic failure for participants in 
regular UB projects and a definition of a veteran who has a high risk 
for academic failure for participants in a VUB project.
    For regular UB, an individual who has a high risk for academic 
failure would mean an individual who: (1) Has not achieved at the 
proficient level on State assessments in reading or language arts; (2) 
has not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments in math; 
(3) has not completed pre-algebra, algebra, or geometry; or (4) has a 
grade point average of 2.5 or less (on a 4.0 scale) for the most recent 
school year for which grade point averages are available.
    For VUB, a veteran who has a high risk for academic failure would 
mean a veteran who: (1) Has been out of high school or dropped out of a 
program of postsecondary education for five or more years; (2) has 
scored on standardized tests below the level that demonstrates a 
likelihood of success in a program of postsecondary education; or (3) 
meets the definition of an individual with disabilities as defined in 
645.6(b).
    Reasons: We have proposed a definition of a high risk student based 
on our experience in administering the TRIO programs and that we 
believe appropriately identifies students most in need of academic 
assistance.
    During the negotiated rulemaking sessions, we initially proposed 
that only regular UB projects be required to include students who are 
at high risk of academic failure as eligible participants. Because of 
the different populations served by UBMS and VUB projects, we did not 
think this provision should apply to these two project types. Many of 
the non-Federal negotiators agreed that UBMS projects should not be 
required to serve high-risk students since UBMS projects are special 
focus projects designed to prepare high school students for 
postsecondary education

[[Page 13841]]

programs that lead to careers in math and science fields.
    Many of the non-Federal negotiators, however, felt that the 
requirement to serve high-risk students should apply to VUB projects. 
The proposed definition of a veteran who has a high risk for academic 
failure reflects the suggestions of some of the non-Federal 
negotiators. This proposed change is intended to ensure that VUB 
projects help veterans who can most benefit from the services offered. 
Additionally, to ensure that disabled veterans can benefit from the 
educational services and activities the VUB project provides, the VUB 
definition would include individuals who meet the proposed definition 
of an individual with disabilities.

UB Required Services (Sec.  645.11)

    Statute: Section 403(c) of the HEOA amended sections 402C of HEA 
and modified the required services or activities for a UB grantee.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  645.11 does not reflect the 
changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: To conform with the HEA, we are proposing to 
amended the regulations to require that UB grantees provide the 
following services: (1) Academic tutoring to enable students to 
complete secondary or postsecondary courses, which may include 
instruction in reading, writing, study skills, mathematics, science, 
and other subjects; (2) advice and assistance in secondary and 
postsecondary course selection; (3) assistance in preparing for college 
entrance examinations and completing college admission applications; 
(4)(i) providing information on the full range of Federal student 
financial aid programs and benefits (including Federal Pell Grant 
awards and loan forgiveness) and resources for locating public and 
private scholarships; and (ii) assistance in completing financial aid 
applications, including the Free Application for Federal Student Aid 
described in section 483(e) of the HEA; (5) guidance on and assistance 
in secondary school reentry, alternative education programs for 
secondary school dropouts that lead to the receipt of a regular 
secondary school diploma, entry into general educational development 
(GED) programs, or entry into postsecondary education; and (6) 
education or counseling services designed to improve the financial 
literacy and economic literacy of students or the student's parents, 
including financial planning for postsecondary education.
    Reasons: We are proposing these changes to align the regulations 
with section 402C of the HEA as amended by the HEOA. Prior to enactment 
of the HEOA, UB grantees could choose participants services from among 
a number of permissible activities and services. Section 403(c) of the 
HEOA, however, amended the HEA to require grantees to provide certain 
services. The proposed amendments reflect the statutory change.

UB and UBMS Permissible Services (Sec.  645.12)

    Statute: Section 403(c)(4) of the HEOA amended section 402C(d) of 
the HEA, which defines the permissible services or activities in the UB 
program.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  645.11(b) specifies what 
services an UB project may provide. This provision does not reflect 
changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to reflect the changes made 
by the HEOA and specify that UB and UBMS grantees may provide the 
following permissible services: (1) Exposure to cultural events, 
academic programs, and other activities not usually available to 
disadvantaged youth; (2) information, activities, and instruction 
designed to acquaint youth participating in the project with the range 
of career options available to the youth; (3) on-campus residential 
programs; (4) mentoring programs involving elementary school or 
secondary school teachers or counselors, faculty members at 
institutions of higher education, students, or any combination of these 
persons; (5) work-study positions where youth participating in the 
project are exposed to careers requiring a postsecondary degree; and 
(6) programs and activities described in (1) through (5) above and are 
specially designed for participants who are limited English proficient, 
participants from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in 
postsecondary education, participants with disabilities, participants 
who are homeless children and youths, participants who are foster care 
youth, or other disconnected participants.
    Reasons: We are proposing these changes to align the regulations 
with section 402C(d) of the HEA as amended by the HEOA. Prior to 
enactment of the new law, projects funded under the UB program could 
choose from among a number of permissible activities and services to 
provide participants. Section 403(c) of the HEOA, however, amended 
section 402C of the HEA to require grantees to provide certain services 
to provide participants and gives grantees the option of providing 
other services. The proposed amendments would reflect the statutory 
changes relating to permissible services or activities.

VUB Permissible Services (Sec.  645.15)

    Statute: Section 403(c) of the HEOA amended section 402C of the HEA 
governing the UB program which defines the required and permissible 
services or activities for VUB grantees.
    Current Regulations: Current regulations do not reflect the changes 
made by the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to modify Sec.  645.15 to 
specify that VUB grantees may provide special services, including 
mathematics and science preparation, to enable veterans to make the 
transition to postsecondary education.
    Reasons: We are proposing this change to align the regulations with 
the statutory amendment made by section 403(c) of the HEOA to section 
402C of the HEA.

Number of Applications (Sec.  645.20)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for changes to the number of applications an 
eligible applicant may submit (Sec.  645.20) in the Number of 
Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit To Serve Different Campuses 
and Different Populations section of the preamble.

Assurances (Sec.  645.21)

    Statute: Section 403(c)(5) of the HEOA amended section 402C(e) of 
the HEA, which requires UB grantees to provide certain assurances as 
part of the application process. Prior to enactment of the HEOA, a UB 
grantee had to provide an assurance that all participants in its 
project would be either low-income or first-generation college students 
with at least two-thirds of the participants a being both low-income 
and first-generation. The remaining participants could be either low-
income individuals or first-generation college students. The HEOA 
amended section 402C(e) of the HEA, to modify this last group to 
include individuals who are at high risk for academic failure as a 
separate group of eligible participants. The HEOA also requires 
applicants to provide an assurance that no student will be denied 
participation in the applicant's UB project because the student entered 
the project after completing the 9th grade.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  645.21 specifies what assurances 
an applicant for a UB grant must include in an application. This 
provision does not reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.

[[Page 13842]]

    Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend Sec.  645.21 to include 
assurances for each of the three project types: UB, UBMS, and VUB. We 
are also proposing to add a new provision that would require that a UB 
grantee provide an assurance that the project will not provide 
participants the same services they are receiving from other programs 
serving similar populations.
    An applicant for a regular UB grant would have to provide 
assurances that--
    (1) Not less than two-thirds of the project's participants will be 
low-income individuals who are potential first-generation college 
students;
    (2) The remaining participants will be low-income individuals, 
potential first-generation college students, or individuals who have a 
high risk for academic failure;
    (3) No student will be denied participation in a project because 
the student will enter the project after the 9th grade;
    (4) Individuals who are receiving services from a GEAR UP project 
under 34 CFR part 694, another UB or UBMS project under 34 CFR part 
645, a TS project under 34 CFR part 643, an EOC project under 34 CFR 
part 644, or a project under other programs serving similar populations 
will not receive the same services under the proposed project.
    An applicant for an UBMS grant would have to provide assurances 
that--
    (1) Not less than two-thirds of the project's participants will be 
low-income individuals who are potential first-generation college 
students;
    (2) The remaining participants will be either low-income 
individuals or potential first-generation college students; and
    (3) No student will be denied participation in a project because 
the student would enter the project after the 9th grade; and
    (4) Individuals who are receiving services from a GEAR UP project 
under 34 CFR part 694, a regular UB or another UBMS project under 34 
CFR part 645, a TS project under 34 CFR part 643, EOC under 34 CFR part 
644, or a project under other programs serving similar populations will 
not receive the same services under the proposed project.
    An applicant for a VUB grant must have to provide assurances to the 
Secretary that--
    (1) Not less than two-thirds of the project's participants will be 
low-income individuals who are potential first-generation college 
students;
    (2) The remaining participants will be low-income individuals, 
potential first-generation college students, or veterans who have a 
high risk for academic failure; and
    (3) Individuals who are receiving services from another VUB project 
under 34 CFR part 645, a TS project under 34 CFR part 643, an EOC 
project under 34 CFR part 644, or a project under other programs 
serving similar populations will not receive the same services under 
the proposed project.
    Reasons: The changes to the listing of required assurances in Sec.  
645.21 are needed to conform the regulations to the changes made to the 
HEA. Also, to ensure no duplication of services between an UB project 
and other similar programs, we are proposing that UB grantees provide 
an assurance that they will not provide the same service to a 
participant also participating, as applicable, in a project funded by 
GEAR UP, UB, UBMS, VUB, TS, EOC, or other programs serving similar 
populations.

Making New Grants (Sec.  645.30)

    Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the HEA requires the Secretary to 
consider, when making Federal TRIO grants, each applicant's prior 
experience (PE) of high quality service delivery under the program for 
which funds are sought. Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by 
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now identifies the specific outcome 
criteria to be used to determine an entity's PE under the UB programs 
(see section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA). The HEA does not establish 
specific procedures for awarding PE points.
    Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the Secretary had the discretion to 
decide whether or not to consider an application from an applicant that 
carried out a project involving the fraudulent use of program funds. 
The HEOA amended the HEA to eliminate that discretion and prohibit the 
Secretary from considering an application from such a party.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  645.30 specifies the procedures 
the Secretary uses to make new grants. Section 645.30(a)(2) needs to be 
expanded to specify the procedures the Secretary will use to award PE 
points.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  645.30 would be expanded to 
specify the procedures the Secretary would use to award PE points. We 
are proposing that the Secretary evaluate the PE of an applicant for 
each of three project years as designated by the Secretary in the 
Federal Register notice inviting applications. We also propose that an 
applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the three years for 
which the annual performance report was submitted. The average of the 
scores for the three project years will be the final PE score for the 
applicant.
    We also propose to amend the wording in Sec.  645.30(d) to specify 
that the Secretary will not make a new grant to an applicant if the 
applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.
    Reasons: To provide more transparency in the process the Secretary 
will use to award PE points, we are proposing to amend Sec.  
645.30(a)(2). We also are proposing to amend Sec.  645.30(d) to reflect 
the statutory change that provides that the Secretary may not consider 
an application from an applicant that carried out a project involving 
the fraudulent use of program funds.

Selection Criteria (Sec.  645.31)

    Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, requires the Secretary to use specific outcome 
criteria to measure the performance of Federal TRIO grants, including 
those funded under the UB program. Specifically, pursuant to section 
402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA, the Secretary must measure the performance of 
UB grantees by examining the extent to which the grantee met or 
exceeded the grant's objectives (as established in the grantee's 
approved application) regarding: (1) The delivery of service to the 
total number of students served by the program, as agreed upon by the 
entity and the Secretary for the period; (2) the students' school 
performance, as measured by the students' grade point average, or its 
equivalent; (3) the students' academic performance, as measured by 
standardized tests, including tests required by the students' State; 
(4) the retention in, and graduation from, secondary school of the 
students; (5) the completion by these students of a rigorous secondary 
school program of study that will make these students eligible for 
programs such as the ACG; (6) the enrollment of the students in an 
institution of higher education; and, (7) to the extent practicable, 
the postsecondary education completion of the students. These statutory 
changes necessitate a change in the grant selection criteria for 
``Objectives'' (Sec.  645.31(b)).
    Further, section 402A(b) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(1) of the HEOA, eliminated the ``in exceptional circumstances 
clause'' that limited the eligibility of secondary schools to apply for 
grants. This statutory change necessitates a change in the grant 
selection criteria regarding ``Applicant and community support'' (Sec.  
645.31(d)).

[[Page 13843]]

    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  645.31 specifies the selection 
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for an UB grant. 
This provision does not reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA 
applicable to the following selection criteria: Objectives (Sec.  
645.31(b)) and Applicant and community support (Sec.  645.31(d)).
    Proposed Regulations (Objectives): We are proposing to amend Sec.  
645.31(b) to provide that, in evaluating UB grant applications, the 
Secretary will consider the quality of the applicant's proposed 
objectives and proposed targets (percentages) on the basis of the 
extent to which they are both ambitious and attainable, given the 
project's plan of operation, budget, and other resources. We propose to 
distribute nine points for this criterion in the following manner for 
UB and UBMS: (1) One point for academic performance (GPA); (2) one 
point for academic performance (standardized test scores); (3) two 
points for secondary school graduation (with regular secondary school 
diploma); (4) one point for completion of a rigorous secondary school 
program of study; (5) three points for postsecondary enrollment; and 
(6) one point for postsecondary completion.
    For VUB, we propose to distribute nine points for this criterion in 
the following manner: (1) Two points for academic performance 
(standardized test scores); (2) three points for education program 
retention and completion; (3) three points for postsecondary 
enrollment; and (4) one point for postsecondary completion.
    Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec.  645.31(b) to reflect the 
changes made to section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA by section 403(a)(5) 
of the HEOA regarding the outcome criteria to be used to measure the 
performance of the UB program. We are proposing to reflect the 
statutory UB outcome criteria in Sec.  645.31(b) as selection criteria 
because we believe that the focus at the outset of the UB discretionary 
grant process (i.e., the evaluation of applications using UB selection 
criteria) should be on the ultimate outcomes the UB program is intended 
to attain.
    Moreover, during the grant period, section 402A(f)(4) of the HEA 
requires the Secretary to measure the performance of the grant based on 
a comparison of the targets agreed upon for the outcome criteria 
established in the applicant's approved application to the actual 
results achieved during each year of the grant period. For this reason, 
we believe it is appropriate to reflect the outcome criteria from 
section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA as the selection criteria for the UB 
program.
    Outcome criteria are also used to evaluate an applicant's PE and 
assign PE points to an application. We discuss the statutory authority, 
current regulations, proposed regulations, and reasons for changes to 
evaluating an applicant's PE in the Evaluating Prior Experience--
Outcome Criteria section of the preamble.
    Proposed Regulations (Applicant and community support): We are 
proposing to amend Sec.  645.31(d)(2) to require written commitments 
from institutions of higher education, in addition to the current 
requirement for written commitments from schools and community 
organizations, to provide resources to supplement the grant and enhance 
project services.
    Reasons: We discuss the reasons for the proposed changes to the 
Selection Criteria--Applicant and Community Support in the TS section 
of the preamble.

Prior Experience Criteria (Sec.  645.32)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for changes to the PE criteria in Sec.  645.32 
in the TRIO Outcome Criteria--Prior Experience section of the preamble.

Amount of a Grant (Sec.  645.33)

    Statute: Section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(1)(C) of the HEOA, increased the minimum UB grant from $190,000 
to $200,000.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  645.33 specifies how the 
Secretary sets the amount of a grant. This provision does not reflect 
the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the regulations to 
reflect the statutory minimum grant amount.
    Reasons: We are proposing this change to reflect the changes made 
to section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA by the HEOA.

Project Period (Sec.  645.34)

    Statute: Section 402A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(1)(B)(i) of the HEOA, provides that all UB grants are for five 
years. Prior to the HEOA, UB grants were awarded for four years, except 
for applicants whose peer review scores were in the highest 10 percent 
of the scores of all applicants; these applicants received five year 
grants.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  645.34 specifies the length of 
an UB project period. This provision does not reflect the change made 
by the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise the regulations to 
define the project period under the UB program as five years for all 
grantees.
    Reasons: The change is made to conform Sec.  645.34 with section 
402A(b)(2) of the HEA as amended by the HEOA.

Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants (Sec.  
645.35)

    We discuss the statutory authority, proposed regulations, and 
reasons for providing a new review process for unsuccessful applicants 
in the Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants 
section of the preamble.

Allowable Costs (Sec.  645.40)

    Statute: The statute does not address the use of UB program funds 
to purchase equipment.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  645.40(n) requires a grantee to 
obtain prior approval from the Secretary to purchase computer and other 
equipment.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise Sec.  645.40(n), 
redesignate Sec.  645.40(o) as Sec.  645.40(p), and add a new Sec.  
645.45(o) to permit an UB grantee, under certain circumstances, to 
purchase, lease or rent computer hardware, software, and other 
equipment and supplies that support the delivery of services to 
participants, including technology used by participants in a rigorous 
secondary school program of study and for project administration and 
recordkeeping without requiring prior approval from the Department.
    Reasons: We discuss the reasons for permitting an UB grantee to 
purchase, lease, or rent computer equipment without prior approval in 
the Changes to the Allowable Costs section of the TS preamble.

Stipends (Sec.  645.42)

    Statute: Section 403(c)(6) of the HEOA amended section 402C(f) of 
the HEA regarding the payment of stipends to UB project participants. 
The HEOA amended the HEA by deleting the words ``during June, July, and 
August'' and replacing them with ``during the summer school recess, for 
a period not to exceed three months.''
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  645.42 specifies the terms of 
the payment of stipends in the UB program. This provision does not 
reflect changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.

[[Page 13844]]

    Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend the current regulations 
to state that the stipend may not exceed $60 per month for the summer 
school recess for a period not to exceed three months except for 
participants in a work-study position who may be paid $300 per month 
during the summer recess.
    Reasons: The proposed change would amend the regulations to reflect 
the change to section 402C(f) of the HEA by section 403(c)(6) of the 
HEOA.

Other Requirements of a Grantee (Sec.  645.43)

    In these proposed regulations, current Sec.  645.43(a) and (b) 
would be removed, a new Sec.  645.43(a) would be added, and Sec.  
645.43(c) would be redesignated as Sec.  645.43(b).

Changes to Number of Participants (Current Sec.  645.43(a) Would Be 
Removed)

    Statute: Section 402A(b)(3) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, 
establishes a minimum grant of $200,000 for UB. The HEA does not 
establish a minimum number of participants a UB project must serve.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  645.43(a)(1) and (2) require a 
regular UB project to serve between 50 and 150 participants; a UBMS 
project to serve between 50 and 75 participants; and a VUB project to 
serve a minimum of 120 participants. Current Sec.  645.43(a)(3) gives 
the Secretary the authority to waive the number of participant 
requirements if the applicant demonstrates that the project will be 
more cost effective and consistent with the objectives of the program 
if a greater or lesser number of participants will be served.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose to remove current Sec.  645.43(a).
    Reasons: We are proposing to remove from the regulations the 
requirement that UB grantees serve a minimum number of participants to 
give the Department the flexibility to establish the number of 
participants to be served based on the available resources for each 
competition and to adjust these numbers for subsequent competitions 
based on experience, changing priorities, and cost analyses.
    We plan to stipulate the minimum and maximum grant award amounts 
and address the number of participants a UB project is expected to 
serve each year of the grant cycle through the Federal Register notice 
inviting applications for the competition. The Federal Register notice 
would also establish a per participant cost to be used to determine the 
amount of the grant for an applicant proposing to serve fewer 
participants than required for the minimum grant award for the 
competition.

Changes to Full-Time Director Requirement (New Sec.  645.43(a))

    Statute: Section 402A(c)(6) of the HEA requires that the Secretary 
permit the Director of a Federal TRIO program to administer one or more 
additional programs for disadvantaged students.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  645.43(b) requires a grantee to 
employ a full-time project director unless the grantee requests a 
waiver.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose to add a new Sec.  645.43(a), that 
would include some of the provisions in current Sec.  645.43(b), but 
would eliminate the requirement for a waiver if a project director is 
administering one or two programs for disadvantaged students. A grantee 
would not need a waiver from the Secretary to have a director that is 
less than full-time on the project if the director is also 
administering one or two additional programs for disadvantaged 
students. A grantee would be required to request a waiver of the full-
time director requirement for the director to administer more than 
three programs.
    Reasons: We discuss the reasons for permitting the Director of a 
Federal TRIO program to administer one or more additional programs for 
disadvantaged students in the Changes to Full-Time Director Requirement 
in the TS section of the preamble.

Student Support Services (SSS), 34 CFR Part 646

SSS Program Purpose (Sec.  646.1)

    Statute: Section 403(d)(1) of the HEOA amended section 402D(a) of 
the HEA, and modified the purpose of the SSS program.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  646.1(c) does not reflect the 
changes made by the HEOA.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend Sec.  646.1(c) and add 
paragraph (d) as follows:
    (c) Foster an institutional climate supportive of the success of 
students who are limited English proficient, students from groups that 
are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education, students 
with disabilities, students who are homeless children and youth, 
students who are in foster care or are aging out of the foster care 
system, or other disconnected students; and
    (d) Improve the financial literacy and economic literacy of 
students in areas such as--
    (1) Basic personal income, household money management, and 
financial planning skills; and
    (2) Basic economic decision-making skills.
    Reasons: The proposed changes are necessary to conform the 
regulations to section 402D(a)(3) of the HEA.

Required and Permissible Services (Sec.  646.4)

    Statute: Section 403(b) of the HEOA amended section 402D of the HEA 
to require SSS grantees to provide certain services and to permit them 
to offer other permissible services.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  646.4 specifies what services a 
SSS grantee may provide. Prior to the changes made by the HEOA, SSS 
grantees could choose from among a number of permissible activities and 
services to provide participants. The current regulations do not 
identify any required services or activities that an SSS grantee must 
provide.
    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would revise Sec.  
646.4 to reflect the required and permissible services or activities 
for SSS grantees under the HEA.
    Consistent with section 402D of the HEA, proposed Sec.  646.4 would 
require that SSS projects provide the following services and 
activities: (1) Academic tutoring, directly or through other services 
provided by the institution, to enable students to complete 
postsecondary courses, which may include instruction in reading, 
writing, study skills, mathematics, science, and other subjects; (2) 
advice and assistance in postsecondary course selection; (3)(i) 
information on both the full range of Federal student financial aid 
programs and benefits (including Federal Pell Grant awards and loan 
forgiveness) and resources for locating public and private 
scholarships, and (ii) assistance in completing financial aid 
applications, including the Free Application for Federal Student Aid; 
(4) education or counseling services designed to improve financial 
literacy and economic literacy of students, including financial 
planning for postsecondary education; (5) activities designed to assist 
students participating in the project in applying for admission to, and 
obtaining financial assistance for enrollment in, graduate and 
professional programs; and (6) activities designed to assist students 
enrolled in two-year institutions of higher education in applying for 
admission to, and obtaining financial assistance for enrollment in, a 
four-year program of postsecondary education.
    The proposed regulations would specify the following permissible 
services or activities for SSS projects: (1) individualized counseling 
for personal, career, and academic matters provided

[[Page 13845]]

by assigned counselors; (2) information, activities, and instruction 
designed to acquaint students participating in the project with the 
range of career options available to the students; (3) exposure to 
cultural events and academic programs not usually available to 
disadvantaged students; (4) mentoring programs involving faculty or 
upper class students, or a combination thereof; (5) securing temporary 
housing during breaks in the academic year for students who are 
homeless children and youths (as that term is defined in section 725 of 
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 1134a)) or were 
formerly homeless children and youths, and students who are in foster 
care or are aging out of the foster care system; and (6) programs and 
activities described in items (1) through (5) above that are specially 
designed for students who are limited English proficient, students from 
groups that are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary 
education, students who are individuals with disabilities, students who 
are homeless children and youths, students who are foster care youth, 
or other disconnected students.
    Reasons: We are proposing to revise Sec.  646.4 to conform to 
changes made by the HEOA.

Project Period (Sec.  646.5)

    Statute: Section 403a(1)(B)(i) of the HEOA amended the HEA to 
provide that all SSS grants are for five years. Prior to enactment of 
the HEOA, SSS grants were awarded for four years, except for applicants 
whose peer review scores are in the highest ten percent of the scores 
of all applicants. Applicants with peer review scores in the highest 
ten percent of all applicants receive five-year grants.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  646.5 specifies the length of an 
SSS project period. This provision does not reflect the change made by 
the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise Sec.  646.5 to 
define the project period as five years for all grantees.
    Reasons: The proposed changes are necessary to conform to section 
402A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA.

Applicable Regulations (Sec.  646.6)

    Statute: None.
    Current Regulations: Section 646.6 specifies which regulations 
apply to the SSS program. This provision contains an outdated list of 
applicable regulations.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to update the list of 
regulations that apply to the SSS program. We also propose to exclude 
Sec. Sec.  75.215 to 75.221 from the list of applicable regulations.
    Reasons: We discuss the reasons for the changes elsewhere in this 
preamble under the Applicable Regulations heading for the Training 
program.

Definitions (Sec.  646.7)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for changes to the definition of institution 
of higher education and individual with disabilities and for the 
addition of different campus, different population, financial and 
economic literacy, foster care youth, and homeless children and youth 
in the Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO Program 
section of the preamble. In addition, we propose to include definitions 
of the terms low-income individual and first generation college 
student.
    Statute: Section 402A(h) of the HEA includes definitions of the 
terms ``low-income individual'' and ``first generation college 
student.''
    Current Regulations: Section 646.7(a) currently includes cross-
references to statutory definitions of low-income individual and first-
generation college student, but does not include those definitions. 
Current Sec.  646.7(b) includes a list of the terms used in Part 646 
that are defined in 34 CFR 77.1. Current Sec.  646.7(c) defines certain 
terms, some of which apply to all of the Federal TRIO programs, and 
some that are specific to the SSS program.
    Proposed Regulations: Current Sec.  646.7(a), which includes 
references to terms defined in the HEA, would be removed, and the 
definitions of the terms currently listed in Sec.  646.7(a) would be 
included in proposed Sec.  646.7(c). Current Sec.  646.7(b) would be 
redesignated as Sec.  646.7(a) and would include the list of terms 
defined in 34 CFR 77.1 that apply to the SSS program. Finally, current 
Sec.  646.7(c) would be redesignated as Sec.  646.7(b), and would 
include definitions of terms that apply to the SSS program, some of 
which apply to all the Federal TRIO programs, as discussed elsewhere in 
this preamble. We also propose to add the definitions of low-income 
individual and first-generation college student to Sec.  646.7(c).
    Reasons: We are proposing to revise Sec.  646.7 and add the 
definitions for low-income individual and a first-generation college 
student to provide for consistency across the regulations for the 
Federal TRIO programs.

Number of Applications (Sec.  646.10)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for modifying Sec.  646.10 in the Number of 
Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit to Serve Different Campuses 
and Different Populations section of the preamble.

Assurances (Sec.  646.11) (Title To Be Changed to: ``What Assurances 
and Other Information Must an Applicant Include in an Application?'')

    Statute: Under section 402D(e) of the HEA as amended by the HEOA, 
the Secretary, in approving applications, shall consider an SSS 
applicant's past history in providing sufficient financial assistance 
to meet the full financial need of each student in the project and 
maintaining loan burden of each student at a manageable level. Prior to 
this amendment section 402D(e) of the HEA specified certain assurances 
that an applicant must provide to the Secretary.
    Current Regulations: Section 646.11 does not reflect the statutory 
requirement that an applicant provide information on its efforts in 
providing sufficient financial assistance to meet the full financial 
need of each student in the project and maintaining the loan burden of 
each student at a manageable level.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  646.11 would require an 
applicant to describe, in its application, its efforts, and where 
applicable, its past history, in providing sufficient financial 
assistance to meet the full financial need of each student in the 
project and maintaining the loan burden of each student at a manageable 
level. In addition, we propose to change the section heading to ``What 
assurances and other information must an applicant include in an 
application?''
    Reasons: The proposed changes are necessary to reflect statutory 
requirements. We are proposing the change to the heading for Sec.  
646.11 to include a reference to ``other information'' because the 
proposed regulations would require an applicant to include information 
that is not an assurance.

Making New Grants (Sec.  646.20)

    Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the HEA requires the Secretary to 
consider, when making Federal TRIO grants, each applicant's prior 
experience (PE) of high quality service delivery under the program for 
which funds are sought. Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by 
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now identifies the specific outcome 
criteria to be used to determine an entity's PE under the SSS (see 
section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA). The HEA does not establish specific 
procedures for awarding PE points.

[[Page 13846]]

    Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the Secretary had the discretion to 
decide whether or not to consider an application from an applicant that 
carried out a project involving the fraudulent use of program funds. 
The HEOA amended the HEA to eliminate that discretion and prohibit the 
Secretary from considering an application from such a party.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  646.20 specifies the procedures 
the Secretary uses to make new grants. Section 645.30(a)(2) needs to be 
expanded to specify the procedures the Secretary will use to award PE 
points.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  646.20 would be expanded to 
specify the procedures the Secretary would use to award PE points. We 
are proposing that the Secretary evaluate the PE of an applicant for 
each of three project years as designated by the Secretary in the 
Federal Register notice inviting applications. We also propose that an 
applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the three years for 
which the annual performance report was submitted; the average of the 
scores for the three project years will be the final PE score for the 
applicant.
    We also propose to amend Sec.  646.20(d) to specify that the 
Secretary will not make a new grant to an applicant if the applicant's 
prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.
    Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec.  646.20(a)(2) to provide 
more transparency in the process the Secretary will use to award PE 
points. We are also proposing to modify Sec.  646.20(d) to be 
consistent with the language used for similar provisions in the 
proposed regulations for the other Federal TRIO programs.

Selection Criteria (Sec.  646.21)

    Statute: Section 402A(f)(3) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a) of the HEOA, requires the Secretary to use specific outcome 
criteria to measure the performance of Federal TRIO grantees, including 
grantees who receive funding under the SSS program. Specifically, 
pursuant to section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA, the Secretary must 
measure the performance of SSS grantees by examining the extent to 
which the grantee met or exceeded the grant's objectives (as 
established in the grantee's approved application) concerning: (1) The 
delivery of service to the total number of students served, as agreed 
upon by the entity and the Secretary for the period; (2) retention in 
postsecondary education of the students served by the SSS project; (3) 
students served by the SSS project who remain in good academic 
standing; and (4) completion of postsecondary education degrees or 
certificates, and transfer to institutions of higher education that 
offer baccalaureate degrees of project participants. These statutory 
changes necessitate changes to Sec.  646.21(b).
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  646.21 specifies the selection 
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a SSS grant. 
The regulations do not reflect the changes made by the HEOA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  646.21(b) to 
provide that, in evaluating SSS grant applications, the Secretary will 
consider the quality of the applicant's proposed objectives on the 
basis of the extent to which they are both ambitious and attainable, 
given the project's plan of operation, budget, and other resources. We 
propose to distribute eight points for this criterion in the following 
manner: (1) Three points for retention in postsecondary education; (2) 
two points for students in good academic standing at the grantee 
institution; (3) for two-year institutions only: (a) one point for 
certificate or degree completion; and (b) two points for certificate or 
degree completion and transfer to a four-year institution; or (4) for 
four year institutions only, three points for completion of a 
baccalaureate degree.
    Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec.  646.21(b) to reflect the 
changes made to section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA by section 403(a) of 
the HEOA regarding the outcome criteria to be used to measure 
performance of the SSS program. We are proposing to reflect the revised 
SSS outcome criteria in Sec.  646.21(b) as selection criteria because 
we believe that the focus at the outset of the SSS discretionary grant 
process (i.e., the evaluation of applications using SSS selection 
criteria) should be on the ultimate outcomes the SSS program is 
designed to attain.
    Moreover, section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA requires the Secretary 
to measure the performance of the grantee based on a comparison of the 
targets agreed upon for the outcome criteria established in the 
applicant's approved application to the actual results achieved during 
the grant period. For this reason, we believe it is appropriate to 
reflect the outcome criteria from section 402A(f))(3)(C) of the HEA in 
the selection criteria for the SSS program.
    Outcome criteria are also used to evaluate an applicant's PE and 
assign PE points to an application. We discuss the statutory authority, 
current regulations, proposed regulations, and reasons for changes to 
evaluating an applicant's PE in the Evaluating Prior Experience--
Outcome Criteria section of the preamble.

Prior Experience Criteria (Sec.  646.22)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for changes to the SSS PE criteria in the TRIO 
Outcome Criteria--Prior Experience section of the preamble.

Amount of a Grant (Sec.  646.23)

    Statute: Section 402A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(1) of the HEOA, increased the minimum SSS grant from $170,000 to 
$200,000.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  646.23 specifies how the 
Secretary sets the amount of a grant. This provision does not reflect 
the changes made by the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend the regulations to 
update the statutory minimum grant amount to $200,000.
    Reasons: We are proposing this change to reflect the change made by 
the HEOA.

Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants (Sec.  
646.24)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons adding a new review process for unsuccessful 
applicants in the Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program 
Applicants section of the preamble.

Allowable and Unallowable Costs (Sec. Sec.  646.30 and 646.31)

    Statute: The HEOA amended section 402D(d)(1) of the HEA to allow a 
recipient of an SSS grant that undertakes any of the permissible 
services in section 402D(c) to use its grant funds to provide grant aid 
to students under certain circumstances. Further, the HEOA amended 
section 402D(c)(5) of the HEA to include, in the list of permissible 
services in the SSS program, securing temporary housing during breaks 
in the academic year for participants who are homeless, or were 
formerly homeless, or who are in foster care. The statute does not 
address the use of grant funds to purchase computers and other 
equipment.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  646.30(f) does not reflect the 
new statutory provisions. Current Sec.  646.30(f) requires a grantee to 
obtain prior approval from the Secretary to use grant funds to purchase 
computers and other equipment. Current Sec.  646.31(b) prohibits the 
use of program funds for tuition, fees, stipends, and other forms

[[Page 13847]]

of direct financial support for staff and participants.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  646.30 by 
revising paragraph (f) to include as an allowable cost the purchase, 
lease or rental of computer hardware for participant development, 
project administration, and recordkeeping without requiring prior 
approval by the Secretary. We are also proposing to add as allowable 
costs the use of SSS funds for grant aid in a new paragraph (i) and to 
pay the costs of temporary housing for homeless and foster care youth 
in a new paragraph (j).
    Reasons: We discuss the reasons for permitting a SSS project to 
purchase computer equipment without prior approval from the Secretary 
in the Changes to the Allowable Costs section of the TS preamble.
    The HEOA placed significant emphasis on the need for SSS grantees 
to provide services for homeless and foster care youth to help 
eliminate the barriers these students face in pursuing their 
educational goals. In addition, because securing temporary housing 
during breaks in the academic year for participants who are homeless, 
or were formerly homeless, or who are in foster care is now included in 
the list of permissible services in section 402D(c)(5) of the HEA, we 
believe that the use of SSS funds for these purposes should be included 
as an allowable cost. The proposed change to allow grant funds to be 
used for grant aid for participants is to conform the regulations to 
the statute.

Other Requirements of a Grantee (Sec.  646.32)

Changes to Full-Time Director Requirement (Sec.  646.32(c))

    Statute: Section 402A(c)(6) of the HEA requires that the Secretary 
permit the Director of a Federal TRIO program to administer one or more 
additional programs for disadvantaged students.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  646.32(c) requires a grantee to 
employ a full-time project director unless the grantee requests a 
waiver to allow the Director to administer more than one program for 
disadvantaged students.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend Sec.  646.32(c) to 
eliminate the requirement for a waiver if a Director is administering 
one or two additional programs for disadvantaged students. A grantee 
must request a waiver of the full-time director requirement for the 
Director to administer more than three programs.
    Reasons: We discuss the reasons for permitting the Director of a 
Federal TRIO program to administer one or more additional programs for 
disadvantaged students in the Changes to Full-Time Director Requirement 
in the TS section of the preamble.

Matching Requirements for Grant Aid (Sec.  646.33)

    Statute: Section 402D(d)(1) of the HEA permits a grantee to use SSS 
funds to provide grant aid to students who meet the requirements in 
section 402D(d)(2) and (3) of the HEA. Section 402D(d)(4) of the HEA 
stipulates that grantees that use program funds for grant aid must 
provide a non-Federal match, in cash, of not less than 33 percent of 
the Federal funds used for grant aid. A grant recipient that is an 
institution of higher education eligible to receive funds under part A 
or part B of title III of the HEA or under title V of the HEA, is not 
required to match the Federal funds used for grant aid. Section 
402D(d)(5) limits the percentage of SSS program funds that may be used 
for grant aid to no more than 20 percent of the SSS funds.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: We propose to add a new Sec.  646.33 that 
would specify the statutory matching and other requirements for a 
grantee that uses SSS funds for grant aid.
    Reasons: These changes are necessary to reflect statutory changes.

Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement (McNair) Program, 34 CFR 
Part 647

Required and Permissible Services (Sec.  647.4)

    Statute: Section 403(b) of the HEOA amended section 402E of the HEA 
to require McNair grantees to provide certain services that were 
previously permissible and by adding a new list of permissible 
services.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  647.4 includes a list of 
permissible services under the program.
    Proposed Regulations: Consistent with section 402E(b) of the HEA, 
proposed Sec.  647.4(a) would require that McNair grantees provide: (1) 
Opportunities for research or other scholarly activities at the grantee 
institution or at graduate centers that are designed to provide 
students with effective preparation for doctoral study; (2) summer 
internships; (3) seminars and other educational activities designed to 
prepare students for doctoral study; (4) tutoring; (5) academic 
counseling; and (6) assistance to students in securing admission to, 
and financial assistance for, enrollment in graduate programs.
    Consistent with section 402E(c) of the HEA, proposed Sec.  647.4(b) 
would specify that the following are permissible services or activities 
for McNair grantees: (1) Education or counseling services designed to 
improve the financial literacy and economic literacy of students, 
including financial planning for postsecondary education; (2) mentoring 
programs involving faculty members at institutions of higher education, 
students, or a combination of faculty members and students; and (3) 
exposure to cultural events and academic programs not usually available 
to disadvantaged students.
    Reasons: We are proposing these changes to align the regulations 
with the statutory amendments made by section 403(b) of the HEOA to 
section 402E(b) and (c) of the HEA.

Project Period (Sec.  647.5)

    Statute: Section 403(a)(1)(B)(i) of the HEOA amended section 
402A(b)(2) of the HEA to provide that all grants under the McNair 
program will be for five years. Prior to enactment of the HEOA, McNair 
grants were awarded for four years except for applications that score 
in the highest ten percent of all applications approved for new grants, 
which are for five years.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  647.5 specifies the length of a 
McNair project period. This provision does not reflect the change made 
by the HEOA to the HEA.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  647.5 would reflect the 
statutory change that establishes the project period as five years for 
all grantees.
    Reasons: The change is made to conform to section 402A(b)(2) of the 
HEA, as amended by the HEOA.

Applicable Regulations (Sec.  647.6)

    Statute: None.
    Current Regulations: Section 647.6 specifies which regulations 
apply to the McNair program. This provision contains an outdated list 
of regulations.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to update the list of 
regulations that apply to the McNair program. We also propose to 
exclude sections 75.215 to 75.221 from the list of applicable 
regulations.
    Reasons: We discuss the reasons for these changes in the Applicable 
Regulations for the Training program section of the preamble.

Definitions (Sec.  647.7)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for changes to the definition of institution 
of higher education and for the addition of different campus, different 
population, and financial and economic literacy, in

[[Page 13848]]

the Definitions Applicable to More Than One Federal TRIO Program 
section of the preamble.
    We are also proposing to revise the definitions for three 
additional terms that are applicable only to the McNair program: 
graduate center; groups underrepresented in graduate school; and 
research or scholarly activity.

Graduate Center

    Statute: Sections 101 and 102 of the HEA define the term 
institution of higher education.
    Current Regulations: The definition of graduate center in current 
Sec.  647.7(b) includes outdated statutory citations to the definition 
of an educational institution.
    Proposed Regulations: The definition of graduate center in Sec.  
647.7 would be revised to reference the definitions provided in 
sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.
    Reasons: This proposed change is necessary to correct incorrect 
cross-references.

Groups Underrepresented in Graduate School

    Statute: Section 402E(d)(2) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, 
specifically identifies Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native 
American Pacific Islanders as groups underrepresented in graduate 
education.
    Current Regulations: The definition of groups underrepresented in 
graduate school in current Sec.  647.7(b) includes Black (non-
Hispanic), Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaskan Native.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to modify Sec.  647.7(b) to 
add Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native American Pacific 
Islanders to the list of groups underrepresented in graduate education. 
Consistent with section 402E(d)(2) of the HEA, the proposed definition 
would reference the definition of Alaska Native in section 7306 of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), the 
definition of Native Hawaiians in section 7207 of the ESEA, and the 
definition of Native American Pacific Islanders as defined in section 
320 of the HEA.
    Reasons: The changes are necessary to conform to statutory changes.

Research or Scholarly Activity

    Statute: Section 402E(b) of the HEA requires McNair grantees to 
provide opportunities for students to participate in research and other 
scholarly activities at the institution or at graduate centers designed 
to provide students with effective preparation for doctoral study. 
Section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA, which includes the outcome criteria 
for the McNair program, also refers to the provision of appropriate 
scholarly research activities for students served by the McNair 
program.
    Current Regulations: The term research and scholarly activities is 
not defined in current Sec.  647.7.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  647.7 would define research 
and scholarly activity as an educational activity that is more rigorous 
than is typically available to undergraduates in a classroom setting, 
that is definitive in its start and end dates, contains appropriate 
benchmarks for completion of various components, and is conducted under 
the guidance of an appropriate faculty member with experience in the 
relevant discipline.
    Reasons: We are proposing the addition of the definition of 
research and scholarly activity to provide for a clear and consistent 
understanding of the term. Because the term is used in the outcome 
criteria that will be used to evaluate a grantee's performance under 
the McNair program, it is important that grantees understand what 
constitutes research and scholarly activities. The proposed definition 
is similar to the one currently used in the McNair annual performance 
report and the McNair grant application package.

Number of Applications (Sec.  647.10)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for changes to the number of applications that 
an entity can submit under the McNair program in the Number of 
Applications an Eligible Entity May Submit to Serve Different Campuses 
and Different Populations section of the preamble.

Making New Grants (Sec.  647.20)

    Statute: Section 402A(c)(2)(A) of the HEA requires the Secretary to 
consider, when making Federal TRIO grants, each applicant's prior 
experience (PE) of high quality service delivery under the program for 
which funds are sought. Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by 
section 403(a)(5) of the HEOA, now identifies the specific outcome 
criteria to be used to determine an entity's PE under the McNair 
program (see section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA). The HEA does not 
establish specific procedures for awarding PE points.
    Prior to enactment of the HEOA, the Secretary had the discretion to 
decide whether or not to consider an application from an applicant that 
carried out a project involving the fraudulent use of program funds. 
The HEOA amended the HEA to eliminate that discretion and prohibit the 
Secretary from considering an application from such a party.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  647.20 specifies the procedures 
the Secretary uses to make new grants. Section 647.20(a)(2) needs to be 
expanded to specify the procedures the Secretary will use to award PE 
points.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  647.20 would be expanded to 
specify the procedures the Secretary would use to award PE points. We 
are proposing that the Secretary evaluate the PE of an applicant for 
each of the three project years as designated by the Secretary in the 
Federal Register notice inviting applications. We also propose that an 
applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the three years for 
which the annual performance report was submitted. The average of the 
scores for the three project years will be the final PE score for the 
applicant.
    We also propose to amend the wording in Sec.  647.20(d) to specify 
that the Secretary will not make a new grant to an applicant if the 
applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.
    Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec.  647.20(a)(2) to provide 
more transparency in the process the Secretary will use to award PE 
points. We also are proposing to amend Sec.  647.20(d) to reflect the 
statutory change that provides that the Secretary may not consider an 
application from an applicant that carried out a project involving the 
fraudulent use of program funds.

Selection Criteria (Sec.  647.21)

    Statute: Section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA, as amended by section 
403(a)(5) of the HEOA, requires the Secretary to use specific outcome 
criteria to measure the performance of Federal TRIO grants, including 
those under the McNair program. Specifically, pursuant to section 
402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA, the Secretary must measure the performance of 
McNair grantees by examining the extent to which the grantee met or 
exceeded the grant's objectives (as established in the grantee's 
approved application) regarding: (1) The delivery of service to the 
total number of students served by the program, as agreed upon by the 
entity and the Secretary for the period; (2) the provision of 
appropriate scholarly and research activities for the students served 
by the program; (3) the acceptance and enrollment of these students in 
graduate programs; and (4) the continued enrollment of such students in 
graduate study and the attainment of doctoral degrees by former program 
participants. These statutory

[[Page 13849]]

changes necessitate a change in the grant selection criteria for 
``Objectives'' (Sec.  647.21(b)).
    Current Regulations (Objectives): Current Sec.  647.21 specifies 
the selection criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application 
for a McNair grant. This regulation does not reflect the changes made 
by the HEOA.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to amend Sec.  647.21(b) to 
provide that, in evaluating McNair applications, the Secretary 
considers the quality of the applicant's proposed objectives on the 
basis of the extent to which they are both ambitious and attainable, 
given the project's plan of operation, budget, and other resources. We 
propose to distribute nine points in the following manner: (1) Two 
points for research; (2) three points for enrollment in a graduate 
program; (3) two points for continued enrollment in graduate study; and 
(4) two points for doctoral degree attainment.
    Reasons: We are proposing to amend Sec.  647.21(b) to reflect the 
changes made to section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA by section 403(a)(5) 
of the HEOA regarding the outcome criteria to be used to measure 
performance of the McNair program. We are proposing to reflect the 
statutory McNair outcome criteria in Sec.  647.21(b) in the selection 
criteria because we believe that the focus at the outset of the McNair 
discretionary grant process (i.e., evaluating applications using McNair 
selection criteria) should reflect the ultimate outcomes the McNair 
program is designed to attain.
    Moreover, section 402A(f)(4) of the HEA requires the Secretary to 
measure the performance of the grantee during the grant period based on 
a comparison of the targets agreed upon for the outcome criteria 
established in the applicant's approved application to the actual 
results achieved during the grant period. For this reason, we believe 
it is appropriate to reflect the outcome criteria from section 
402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA in the selection criteria for the McNair 
program.
    Outcome criteria are also used to evaluate an applicant's PE and 
assign PE points to an application. We discuss the statutory authority, 
current regulations, proposed regulations, and reasons for changes to 
evaluating an applicant's PE in the Evaluating Prior Experience--
Outcome Criteria section of the preamble.

Prior Experience Criteria (Sec.  647.22)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for changes to the PE criteria under the 
McNair program in the TRIO Outcome Criteria--Prior Experience section 
of this preamble.

Review Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants (Sec.  
647.24)

    We discuss the statutory authority, current regulations, proposed 
regulations, and reasons for adding a review process for unsuccessful 
TRIO applicants under the McNair program in the Review Process for 
Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program Applicants section of this preamble.

Allowable Costs (Sec.  647.30)

    Statute: Section 402E(f) of the HEA provides that students 
participating in research under a McNair project may receive an award 
that includes a stipend not to exceed $2,800 per year. The statute does 
not address the use of grant funds to purchase equipment.
    Current Regulations: Under current Sec.  647.30(b) of the 
regulations the maximum stipend for students participating in research 
is $2,400. Current Sec.  647.30(d) of the regulations requires a 
grantee to obtain approval from the Secretary to use McNair funds to 
purchase computer and other equipment.
    Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to increase the maximum 
stipend amount in Sec.  647.30(b) to $2,800. We also are proposing to 
revise paragraph (d) to allow grantees to use grant funds for the 
purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware for participant 
development, project administration, and recordkeeping without prior 
approval from the Secretary.
    Reasons: The change in the maximum stipend amount is necessary to 
conform to the statute. We discuss the reasons for permitting a McNair 
project to purchase computer equipment without prior approval in the 
Changes to the Allowable Costs section of the TS preamble.

Part 694--Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate 
Programs (GEAR UP)

Funding Rules

    Statute: None.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  694.1 describes how the 
Secretary calculates the maximum amount that the Secretary may award 
each fiscal year to a Partnership or a State under the GEAR UP program.
    Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to amend current 
Sec.  694.1 to clarify that the Secretary may establish in a notice 
published in the Federal Register the maximum amount that may be 
awarded for each fiscal year to any GEAR UP Partnership grantee. 
Although the Secretary already has the authority to set a maximum award 
for a grant under 34 CFR 75.101(a)(2) and 75.104 of the Education 
Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), the proposed 
provision would provide explicit regulatory authority for the Secretary 
to set a maximum award for GEAR UP Partnership grants. Under current 
Sec.  694.1, the Secretary already sets a maximum award for State GEAR 
UP grants by publication of a notice in the Federal Register.
    Proposed Sec.  694.1(a) would also specify that the maximum amount 
for which a Partnership may apply may not exceed the lesser of the 
maximum amount established by the Secretary, if applicable, or, as in 
Sec.  694.1(a) as currently exists, the amount calculated by 
multiplying $800 by the number of students the Partnership proposes to 
serve that year, as stated in the Partnership's plan.
    Reasons: Although the Secretary already has the authority to set a 
maximum award for GEAR UP Partnership grants under 34 CFR 75.101(a)(2) 
and 75.104, the proposed changes to Sec.  694.1(a) would provide 
explicit regulatory authority for the Secretary to set a maximum award 
for GEAR UP Partnership grants. Our proposal would apprise the public 
of the Secretary's authority in this area by having Sec.  694.1 address 
establishment of a maximum award for both State grants and Partnership 
grants.
    We propose to keep the $800 per student cap in Sec.  694.1(a), 
because regardless of whether the Secretary decides to set a maximum 
Partnership award through a notice published in the Federal Register, 
we believe that it is important to ensure that the amount of a grant is 
proportionate to the number of students served and that excessive costs 
are discouraged. The $800 per student cap has proven to be sufficient 
for current GEAR UP Partnership grantees, and its retention ensures 
some consistency across grants with regard to the intensity of services 
provided to students.

Changes in the Cohort

    Statute: Sections 404B(d) and 404C(a)(2)(F) of the HEA, as amended, 
address the cohort approach but do not specify which students a State 
or Partnership must serve when there are changes in the cohort.
    Section 404B(d) of the HEA continues to provide that, under the 
cohort approach, Partnership grantees must provide services to (1) at 
least one grade level of students, beginning not later than seventh 
grade, in a participating

[[Page 13850]]

school that has a seventh grade and in which at least 50 percent of the 
students enrolled are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch under 
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or, (2) if a State or 
a Partnership determines that it would promote the effectiveness of a 
program, an entire grade level of students, beginning not later than 
seventh grade, who reside in public housing as defined in section 
3(b)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937. Under section 
404C(a)(2)(F) of the HEA, as amended by section 404(c)(2) of the HEOA, 
a State that chooses to use a cohort approach or a Partnership must 
include in its application a description of how it will define the 
cohorts of students to be served, and how it will serve the cohorts 
through grade 12.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  694.4 describes which students a 
State or Partnership must serve when there are changes in the cohort. 
Specifically, if not all of the students in the cohort attend the same 
school after the cohort completes the last grade level offered by the 
school at which the cohort began to receive GEAR UP services, it 
requires a State or a Partnership to continue to provide GEAR UP 
services to at least those students in the cohort who attend 
participating schools that enroll a substantial majority of the 
students in the cohort.
    Proposed Regulations: The Department is proposing to amend Sec.  
694.4 to provide that if not all students in the cohort attend the same 
school after the cohort completes the last grade level offered by the 
school at which the cohort began to receive GEAR UP services, a 
Partnership or a State must continue to provide GEAR UP services to at 
least those students in the cohort who attend one or more participating 
schools that together enroll a substantial majority of the students in 
the cohort.
    Reasons: We are proposing to revise current Sec.  694.4 in this 
manner in response to a request by the non-Federal negotiators to 
clarify who a grantee must serve if not all students in the cohort 
attend the same school after the cohort completes the last grade level 
offered by the school at which the cohort began to receive GEAR UP 
services.

Changes to Matching Requirements

    Statute: Section 404C(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by section 
404(c)(3) of the HEOA, changes the GEAR UP matching requirement by 
permitting a GEAR UP grantee's required matching funds from State, 
local, institutional or private funds to be accrued over the full 
duration of the grant award period provided that the grantee makes 
``substantial progress'' towards meeting the matching requirement in 
each year of the grant award period.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  694.7 is the regulatory 
provision addressing matching fund requirements and it does not reflect 
changes made to the HEA by the HEOA. Current Sec.  694.7(a)(2) requires 
that the Partnership comply with the matching percentage stated in its 
application for each year of the project period. In addition, Sec.  
694.7(b)(2) contains authority for a Partnership with three or fewer 
IHEs as members to have a matching requirement of 30 to 50 percent of 
total project costs.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  694.7(a)(2) would require that 
a GEAR UP grantee make substantial progress towards meeting the 
matching percentage stated in its approved application for each year of 
the project period. We would remove the provision regarding reduction 
of the match requirement for Partnerships with three or fewer IHEs from 
current Sec.  694.7(b), and address both reduction and waiver of the 
matching requirement in new proposed Sec. Sec.  694.8 and 694.9.
    Reasons: The Department proposes to amend Sec.  694.7 and to 
address reduction and waiver of the matching requirement in new 
proposed Sec. Sec.  694.8 and 694.9 to more closely align these 
regulations with the corresponding matching requirements in the HEA, 
and to ensure that the regulations are clear and understandable to the 
public. The following section entitled Waiver of Matching Requirements 
discusses, in more detail, the statutory basis and rationale for the 
Department's proposal to add new Sec. Sec.  694.8 and 694.9.

Waiver of Matching Requirements

    Statute: Section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA, prior to the enactment of 
the HEOA, allowed the Secretary to modify, by regulation, the matching 
requirement applicable to a Partnership. Section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA, 
as amended by section 404(c)(3)(C) of the HEOA, retains this provision 
and also authorizes the Secretary to approve the following types of 
requests for reduction to the matching requirement: (1) Requests made 
at the time of an application, if the applicant demonstrates a 
significant economic hardship that precludes it from meeting the 
matching requirement, (2) requests made at the time of application by a 
Partnership applicant to count contributions to scholarship funds 
established under section 404E of the HEA on a two-to-one basis, and 
(3) requests made by a grantee demonstrating that the matching funds 
identified in its approved application are no longer available, and the 
grantee has exhausted all revenues for replacing these matching funds.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  694.7(b)(2) specifies the 
circumstances under which the Department permits an eligible 
Partnership grantee to reduce its obligation to match funds to less 
than 50 percent of the total cost over the project period. It does not 
reflect changes made to section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA by the HEOA.
    Proposed Regulations: As discussed in the previous section, the 
Department proposes to remove paragraph (b)(2) from current Sec.  
694.7. The Department also proposes to add new Sec.  694.8 (Under what 
conditions may the Secretary approve a request from a Partnership 
applying for a GEAR UP grant to waive a portion of the matching 
requirement?). Proposed Sec.  694.8(a) would provide that the Secretary 
may approve a Partnership applicant's request for a waiver of up to 75 
percent of the matching requirement for up to two years if the 
applicant demonstrates in its application a significant economic 
hardship that stems from a specific, exceptional, or uncontrollable 
event, such as a natural disaster, that has a devastating effect on the 
members of the Partnership and the community in which the project would 
operate. For purposes of this preamble, we refer to this waiver as the 
``75 Percent Waiver.''
    Proposed Sec.  694.8(b) would provide that the Secretary may 
approve a Partnership applicant's request to waive up to 50 percent of 
the matching requirement for up to two years if the applicant 
demonstrates in its application a pre-existing and an on-going 
significant economic hardship that precludes the applicant from meeting 
its matching requirement. For purposes of this preamble, we refer to 
this waiver as the ``50 Percent Waiver.'' Proposed Sec.  694.8(b)(2) 
would specify that in determining whether an applicant is experiencing 
an on-going economic hardship that is significant enough to justify a 
50 Percent Waiver, the Secretary considers documentation of applicable 
factors and lists examples of these factors. Proposed Sec.  694.8(b)(3) 
would state that, at the time of application, the Secretary may provide 
tentative approval of an applicant's request for a 50 Percent Waiver 
for all remaining years of the project period. This proposed section 
would specify that grantees that receive tentative approval of a 50 
Percent Waiver for more than two years under Sec.  694.8(b)(3) must 
submit to the Secretary every two years, by such time as the Secretary 
may direct, documentation that demonstrates that (1) the significant 
economic hardship upon which the waiver was

[[Page 13851]]

granted still exists; and (2) the grantee tried diligently, but 
unsuccessfully, to obtain contributions needed to meet the matching 
requirement.
    Consistent with section 404C(c)(1) of the HEA, proposed Sec.  
694.8(c) would provide that the Secretary may approve a Partnership 
applicant's request in its application to match its contributions to 
its scholarship fund, established under section 404E of the HEA, on the 
basis of two non-Federal dollars for every one Federal dollar of GEAR 
UP funds.
    Also, similar to provisions in current Sec.  694.7(b)(2), proposed 
Sec.  694.8(d) would provide that the Secretary may approve a request 
by a Partnership applicant that has three or fewer institutions of 
higher education as members to waive up to 70 percent of the matching 
requirement if the Partnership applicant meets the criteria set forth 
in proposed Sec.  694.8(d)(1) through (3).
    We propose to add new Sec.  694.9 (Under what conditions may the 
Secretary approve a request from a Partnership that has received a GEAR 
UP grant to waive a portion of the matching requirement?). This section 
would provide that after a grant is awarded, the Secretary may approve 
a Partnership grantee's written request for a waiver of up to (1) 50 
percent of the matching requirement for up to two years if the grantee 
demonstrates that the matching contributions described for those two 
years in the grantee's approved application are no longer available and 
the grantee has exhausted all funds and sources of potential 
contributions for replacing the matching funds; or (2) 75 percent of 
the matching requirement for up to two years if the grantee 
demonstrates that matching contributions from the original application 
are no longer available due to an uncontrollable event, such as a 
natural disaster, that has a devastating economic effect on members of 
the Partnership and the community in which the project would operate.
    Proposed Sec.  694.9(b) would also specify that in determining 
whether the grantee has exhausted all funds and sources of potential 
contributions for replacing matching funds, the Secretary considers the 
grantee's documentation of key factors. This section would include a 
list of examples of these factors (e.g., a reduction of revenues from 
State government, County government, or the local educational agency; 
an increase in local unemployment rates; and significant reductions in 
the operating budgets of institutions of higher education that are 
participating in the grant).
    Proposed Sec.  694.9(c) would provide that if a grantee has 
received one or more waivers under Sec. Sec.  694.8 or 694.9, the 
grantee may request an additional waiver of the matching requirement 
under Sec.  694.9 no earlier than 60 days before the expiration of the 
grantee's existing waiver. Finally, proposed Sec.  694.9(d) would 
provide that the Secretary may grant additional waiver requests for up 
to 50 percent of the matching requirement for a period of up to two 
years upon the expiration of any previous waivers.
    In order to accommodate these new proposed provisions, we propose 
to redesignate current Sec. Sec.  694.8 and 694.9 as Sec. Sec.  694.10 
and 694.11, respectively. We also propose to redesignate current Sec.  
694.12 as Sec.  694.17. We made no substantive changes to these three 
provisions when redesignating them.
    Reasons: The Department is proposing to add new Sec. Sec.  694.8 
and 694.9 to incorporate suggestions made by non-Federal negotiators to 
(1) limit the waiver of the matching requirement to 50 to 75 percent of 
the requirement; (2) limit the period of the waiver to two years, 
unless the grantee reapplies for another waiver; and (3) create a 
multiple-tiered system for different types of waiver requests. We are 
proposing this new regulatory language because we believe that it will 
help preserve the integrity of the GEAR UP program as a partnership 
model with a significant matching requirement component, and balance 
this aspect of the program with fair, understandable, statutorily-based 
waiver options. In this regard, the 50 Percent and 75 Percent Waivers 
that we are proposing are consistent with the views expressed by the 
non-Federal negotiators. Also consistent with their views, we believe 
that while a maximum 50 percent waiver is reasonable for projects with 
partners and communities facing chronic economic difficulties, a larger 
waiver is appropriate where areas are facing significant economic 
hardship due to events such as a natural disaster. In accordance with 
the recommendation of the non-Federal negotiators, we propose a maximum 
75 percent waiver for these circumstances, believing as the non-Federal 
negotiators expressed, that with the availability of in-kind matching 
contributions the Partnership should still be able to provide a 25 
percent annual matching contribution.
    Proposed Sec.  694.8(b)(3) would specify that, at the time of 
application, the Secretary may provide tentative approval of an 
applicant's request for a 50 Percent Waiver for the entire project 
period. This would allow an applicant that meets the conditions for a 
waiver to apply for a grant without needing to identify additional 
sources of match funding for the later years of the project period. On-
going significant economic hardship may preclude an applicant from 
being able to identify additional sources of match funding in a 
proposed budget for later years of the project and we do not believe 
that this should bar the applicant from obtaining a grant. Proposed 
Sec.  694.8(b)(3) would require that grantees who received tentative 
approval of a waiver for more than two years submit documentation to 
the Secretary every two years with regard to continuation of 
significant economic hardship and efforts to meet the matching 
requirement. We believe that this proposal both will encourage grantees 
to seek alternative sources of match during their project period, and 
help the Department to provide appropriate oversight concerning the 50 
Percent Waiver.
    The non-Federal negotiators provided examples of factors the 
Secretary may consider in determining whether to provide an applicant 
or grantee a 50 Percent Waiver of the matching requirement. The 
Department incorporated the non-Federal negotiators' examples in 
proposed Sec. Sec.  694.8(b)(2) and 694.9(b) because we believe that 
these examples will help the public, including applicants and grantees, 
to better understand the process for seeking a waiver of a portion of a 
GEAR UP Partnership matching requirement, and the Department's 
expectations in reviewing any waiver requests. We included regulatory 
language regarding additional waiver requests in proposed Sec.  
694.9(c) and (d) to allow grantees that continue to meet the conditions 
for a waiver to request and receive a waiver for a period of up to two 
additional years. Because no waiver of more than two years would be 
granted, the Secretary has an opportunity at least every two years to 
review whether a grantee continues to meet the conditions for a waiver.
    The Department is proposing to divide the matching provisions into 
two separate sections, with provisions for Partnership applicants in 
Sec.  694.8 and provisions for Partnership grantees in Sec.  694.9 to 
make these provisions easier to follow and understand. The Department 
also is proposing to move the waiver provision in current Sec.  
694.7(b)(2) to new Sec.  694.8, and is proposing slight modifications 
to the wording of that provision so that it aligns with the new waiver 
provisions in proposed Sec. Sec.  694.8 and 694.9.

Scholarship Component

    Statute: Section 404E(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by section 
404(e) of the HEOA, requires GEAR UP grantees

[[Page 13852]]

to use not less than 25 percent and not more than 50 percent of GEAR UP 
grant funds for activities described in section 404D of the HEA, i.e., 
required and permissible pre-college or university activities, (except 
for the activity described in section 404D(a)(4) of the HEA, i.e., a 
State's use of funds for scholarships under section 404E), with the 
remainder of the funds to be used for a scholarship program under 
section 404E of the HEA. However, section 404E(b)(2) allows a GEAR UP 
grantee to use more than 50 percent of GEAR UP grant funds for pre-
college or university activities if (1) it demonstrates that it has 
another means of providing the students with the financial assistance 
described in section 404E of the HEA, and (2) describes these means in 
its project application.
    Section 404E(c) of the HEA, as amended by section 404(e) of the 
HEOA, mandates that each grantee providing scholarships under section 
404E must provide information on the eligibility requirements for the 
scholarships to all participating students upon the students' entry 
into the GEAR UP program.
    Section 404(e) of the HEOA amended section 404E(d) of the HEA 
regarding the minimum amount of a GEAR UP scholarship. Now the HEA 
states that the minimum amount of a GEAR UP scholarship for each fiscal 
year is the minimum Federal Pell Grant award under section 401 of the 
HEA for that award year. Prior law had made the minimum scholarship 
amount for each fiscal year the lesser of 75 percent of the average 
cost of attendance for an in-State student in a 4-year instructional 
program at an IHE in each State or the maximum Federal Pell grant for 
that year.
    Section 404E(e)(1) and (2) of the HEA, as amended by section 404(e) 
of the HEOA, provides that States that receive a GEAR UP grant must 
hold in reserve funds for scholarships for eligible students, as 
defined in section 404E(g) of the HEA, in an amount that is not less 
than the minimum scholarship amount multiplied by the number of 
students that the State estimates will (1) complete a secondary school 
diploma, its recognized equivalent, or another recognized alternative 
standard for individuals with disabilities, and (2) enroll in an IHE. 
We address the definition of an ``eligible student'' in our discussion 
of proposed Sec.  694.13(d) under the ``Proposed Regulations'' part of 
this section.
    Finally, section 401(c) of Public Law 111-39, technical amendments 
to the HEOA enacted into law on July 1, 2009, amended section 404 of 
the HEOA to provide that section 404E(e) of the HEA is not applicable 
to grants made before August 14, 2008, except that the recipient of a 
grant made prior to that date may elect to apply the requirements 
contained in section 404E if the recipient informs the Secretary of 
this election. Section 401(c) of Public Law 111-39 goes on to provide 
that a grant recipient may make this election only if the election does 
not decrease the amount of the scholarship promised to an individual 
student under the grant.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  694.10 is the regulatory 
provision that specifies the requirements for GEAR UP scholarships 
under the HEA, as previously authorized. Current Sec.  694.11 provides 
that GEAR UP Partnership grantees that do not participate in the GEAR 
UP scholarship component may provide financial assistance for 
postsecondary education with GEAR UP funds, or non-Federal funds used 
to comply with the matching requirement, to students who participate in 
the early intervention component of GEAR UP if (1) the financial 
assistance is directly related to, and in support of, other activities 
of the Partnership under the early intervention component, and (2) it 
complies with the requirements for scholarship awards in Sec.  694.10. 
These sections do not reflect the changes made by the HEOA to the 
statutorily required priorities.
    Proposed Regulations: To accommodate the proposed addition of 
regulatory provisions, as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the 
Department proposes to redesignate current Sec. Sec.  694.10 and 694.11 
as proposed Sec. Sec.  694.13 and 694.15. We also propose to add a new 
Sec.  694.12 and Sec.  694.14 to address the changes made by section 
401(c) of Public Law 111-39.
    Specifically, proposed Sec.  694.12(a) would provide that (1) State 
grantees must establish or maintain a financial assistance program that 
awards section 404E scholarships to students in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  694.13 or Sec.  694.14, as applicable, and (2) 
Partnership grantees that choose to award scholarships to eligible 
students pursuant to section 404E of the HEA must likewise comply with 
the requirements of Sec.  694.13 or Sec.  694.14, as applicable. 
Consistent with section 401(c) of Public Law 111-39, proposed Sec.  
694.12(b) would clarify that a State or Partnership grantee providing 
section 404E scholarships with GEAR UP funds that were awarded to it 
prior to August 14, 2008, must provide such scholarships in accordance 
with the requirements of Sec.  694.13 unless it (1) elects to provide 
the scholarships in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  694.14 
(which governs grantees with initial GEAR UP awards made on or after 
August 14, 2008), and (2) pursuant to Sec.  694.12(b)(2), notifies the 
Secretary of this election, and ensure that the election does not 
decrease the amount of a GEAR UP scholarship that had been promised to 
a student. Finally, proposed Sec.  694.12(c) would clarify that a State 
or Partnership grantee making section 404E scholarship awards using 
GEAR UP funds that were awarded on or after August 14, 2008, must 
provide such scholarships in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  
694.14.
    Newly redesignated Sec.  694.13 would provide basic requirements 
for section 404E scholarships for grantees who received their initial 
GEAR UP grant awards prior to August 14, 2008, and who choose not to 
make the election described in the paragraph above. Specifically, Sec.  
694.13(a) would provide that (1) the maximum scholarship amount that an 
eligible student may receive under this section must be established by 
the grantee; (2) the minimum scholarship amount that an eligible 
student receives in a fiscal year pursuant to this section must not be 
less than the lesser of (a) 75 percent of the average cost of 
attendance for an in-State student, in a four-year program of 
instruction, at public IHEs in the student's State, or (b) the maximum 
Federal Pell Grant award under section 401 of the HEA for the award 
year in which the scholarship is awarded; and (3) if an eligible 
student who is awarded a GEAR UP scholarship attends an IHE on a less 
than full-time basis during any award year, the State or Partnership 
awarding the GEAR UP scholarship may reduce the scholarship amount, but 
the percentage reduction in the scholarship may not be greater than the 
percentage reduction in tuition and fees charged to that student.
    Like Sec.  694.10(e) of the current regulations, proposed Sec.  
694.13(b) would provide that scholarships made in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  694.13 may not be considered for the purpose of 
awarding Federal grant assistance under title IV of the HEA. Proposed 
Sec.  694.13(b), like current Sec.  694.10(c), would go on to clarify 
that in no case may the total amount of student financial assistance 
awarded to a student under title IV of the HEA exceed the student's 
total cost of attendance.
    Proposed Sec.  694.13(c)(1) would specify that grantees providing 
section 404E scholarship awards in accordance with Sec.  694.13 must 
award GEAR UP scholarships first to students who will receive, or are 
eligible to receive, a

[[Page 13853]]

Federal Pell Grant during the award year in which the GEAR UP 
scholarship is being awarded. Proposed Sec.  694.13(c)(2) would specify 
that if a grantee providing section 404E scholarship awards in 
accordance with Sec.  694.13 has funds remaining after awarding 
scholarships to students under Sec.  694.13(c)(1), it may award GEAR UP 
scholarships to other eligible students (i.e., students who are not 
eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant) after considering the need of 
those students for GEAR UP scholarships. These proposed provisions are 
similar to Sec.  694.10(b)(1) and (2) of the current regulations.
    Proposed Sec.  694.13(d) would provide that for purposes of Sec.  
694.13, an eligible student is a student who (1) Is less than 22 years 
old at the time of award of the student's first GEAR UP scholarship; 
(2) has received a secondary school diploma or its recognized 
equivalent on or after January 1, 1993; (3) is enrolled or accepted for 
enrollment in a program of undergraduate instruction at an IHE that is 
located within the State's boundaries, except that, at the grantee's 
option, a State or a Partnership may offer scholarships to students who 
attend IHE outside the State; and (4) has participated in the 
activities under Sec. Sec.  694.21 or 694.22.
    Proposed Sec.  694.13(e) (like proposed Sec.  694.14(d)) would 
provide that States using a priority approach may award scholarships 
under Sec.  694.13(a) to eligible students identified by priority at 
any time during the grant award period rather than reserving 
scholarship funds for use only in the seventh year of a project or 
after the grant award period.
    Proposed Sec.  694.13(f) would provide that a State or a 
Partnership that provides scholarship awards in accordance with Sec.  
694.13 must award continuation scholarships in successive award years 
to each student who received an initial scholarship and who is enrolled 
or accepted for enrollment in a program of undergraduate instruction at 
an IHE. This provision is similar to current Sec.  694.10(d).
    New Sec.  694.14 would establish requirements for section 404E 
scholarship awards made by grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards 
were made on or after August 14, 2008. Proposed Sec.  694.14(a) would 
provide that (1) the maximum scholarship amount that an eligible 
student may receive under section 404E must be established by the 
grantee; (2) the minimum scholarship amount that an eligible student 
receives in a fiscal year must not be less than the minimum Federal 
Pell Grant award under section 401 of the HEA at the time of award; and 
(3) if an eligible student who is awarded a GEAR UP scholarship attends 
an IHE on a less than full-time basis during any award year, the State 
or Partnership awarding the GEAR UP scholarship may reduce the 
scholarship amount, but in no case may the percentage reduction in the 
scholarship be greater than the percentage reduction in tuition and 
fees charged to that student.
    Proposed Sec.  694.14(b) would repeat the description of eligible 
student that we propose in Sec.  694.13(d), except that the fourth 
element of proposed Sec.  694.14(b) would differ from proposed Sec.  
694.13(d)(4). The fourth element of section 694.14(b) would specify 
that the student must have participated in the activities required 
under Sec.  694.21 while the fourth element of Sec.  694.13(d) would 
require that the student participated in activities under Sec. Sec.  
694.21 or 694.22.
    Proposed Sec.  694.14(c) would provide that (1) by the time 
students who have received services from a State grant have completed 
the twelfth grade, a State that has not received a waiver under section 
404E(b)(2) of the HEA of the requirement to spend at least 50 percent 
of its GEAR UP funds on scholarships must have in reserve an amount 
that is not less than the minimum Federal Pell Grant multiplied by the 
number of students the State estimates will enroll in an institution of 
higher education; (2) consistent with Sec. Sec.  694.14(a) and 
694.16(a), States must use funds held in reserve to make scholarships 
to eligible students; (3) scholarships must be made to all students who 
are eligible under the definition in Sec.  694.14(b); and (4) a grantee 
may not impose additional eligibility criteria that would have the 
effect of limiting or denying a scholarship to an eligible student.
    Proposed Sec.  694.14(d) would specify that States using a priority 
approach may award scholarships under Sec.  694.14(a) to eligible 
students identified by priority at any time during the grant award 
period rather than reserving scholarship funds for use only in the 
seventh year of a project or after the grant award period.
    Proposed Sec.  694.14(e) would require States awarding scholarships 
under this provision to provide information on the eligibility 
requirements for the scholarships to all participating students upon 
the students' entry into the GEAR UP program.
    Proposed Sec.  694.14(f) would specify that a State must provide 
scholarship funds as described in this section to all eligible students 
who attend an IHE in the State, and may provide these scholarship funds 
to eligible students who attend IHEs outside the State.
    Proposed Sec.  694.14(g) would permit a State or a Partnership that 
chooses to participate in the scholarship component of the GEAR UP 
program in accordance with section 404E of the HEA to award 
continuation scholarships in successive award years to each student who 
received an initial scholarship and who is enrolled or accepted for 
enrollment in a program of undergraduate instruction at an IHE.
    Proposed Sec.  694.14(h), like proposed Sec.  694.13(b) and current 
Sec.  694.10(e), would specify that a GEAR UP scholarship provided 
under section 404E of the HEA may not be considered in the 
determination of a student's eligibility for other grant assistance 
provided under title IV of the HEA, except that in no case may the 
total amount of student financial assistance awarded to a student under 
title IV of the HEA exceed the student's total cost of attendance.
    Finally, we would redesignate current Sec.  694.11 as Sec.  694.15, 
and would revise it to provide that a GEAR UP Partnership that does not 
participate in the GEAR UP scholarship component may provide financial 
assistance for postsecondary education with non-Federal funds in 
satisfaction of the matching requirement in section 404C(b) of the HEA.
    Reasons: The Department is proposing to revise newly redesignated 
Sec.  694.13 and add new Sec. Sec.  694.12 and 694.14 to implement 
section 404E of the HEA, as amended by section 404(e) of the HEOA, and 
section 401(c) of Public Law 111-39. Proposed Sec.  694.12 would 
specify under what conditions State and Partnership GEAR UP grantees 
make section 404E scholarship awards.
    Specifically, proposed Sec.  694.12(a) would identify the different 
rules that State GEAR UP grantees must follow with regard to these 
awards, and that Partnership GEAR UP grantees must follow if they 
choose to make GEAR UP scholarship awards under section 404E. Proposed 
Sec.  694.12(b) would (1) distinguish between section 404E scholarship 
awards made by grantees who received their initial GEAR UP grant awards 
prior to August 14, 2008, and section 404E scholarship awards made by 
grantees who received their initial GEAR UP grant awards on or after 
August 14, 2008, and (2) identify the applicable regulatory provision 
(i.e., Sec.  694.13 or Sec.  694.14) for each group of grantees.
    In doing so, Sec.  694.12(b) and (c) implement section 401(c) of 
Public Law 111-39, which makes section 404E scholarship requirements 
inapplicable to grantees who received their initial award before that 
date unless a grantee elected to apply the new requirements

[[Page 13854]]

without decreasing the amount of scholarship provided to individual 
students. In this regard, proposed Sec.  694.12(b)(2) would specify 
when and how GEAR UP grantees who received initial grant awards prior 
to August 14, 2008, may elect to apply the rules for GEAR UP grantees 
that received their initial grant awards on or after August 14, 2008. 
Public Law 111-39 does not address this matter. We are proposing to add 
these provisions to ensure the public understands the responsibilities 
of, and options available to, all State and Partnership grantees with 
regard to the scholarship component of the GEAR UP program.
    Consistent with section 401(c) of Public Law 111-39, we propose to 
revise newly redesignated Sec.  694.13 to identify the scholarship 
requirements governing State and Partnership GEAR UP grantees who 
received their initial awards prior to August 14, 2008. The provisions 
in proposed Sec.  694.13 make the requirements in section 404E as it 
existed prior to the effective date of the HEOA applicable to such 
scholarship awards unless a grantee chooses to make the election that 
section 401(c) authorizes. As discussed more fully below in our reasons 
for proposing Sec.  694.14(d), we propose adding a new paragraph (e) to 
these provisions, which would clarify that a State using a priority 
approach to select participating students may award scholarships to 
eligible students at any time during the grant award period (rather 
than holding these funds in reserve until the seventh year of the grant 
award period). We do so because a State selecting students using the 
priority approach may provide initial GEAR UP services much later than 
seventh grade, and so would need to be able to award scholarships much 
earlier in its multiyear project period than would a State grantee that 
used a cohort approach to select students.
    Similarly, we are proposing to add a new Sec.  694.14 to implement 
and clarify the scholarship requirements in section 404E of the HEA, as 
amended, that apply to scholarship awards made by grantees who received 
initial GEAR UP awards on or after August 14, 2008. We are proposing to 
include in Sec.  694.14(a)(1) and (a)(2) regulatory language regarding 
maximum and minimum scholarship amounts to reflect the language in 
404E(d) of the HEA, as amended by section 404(e) of the HEOA. As with 
proposed Sec.  694.13(a)(3), proposed Sec.  694.14(a)(3) would retain 
the requirement in current Sec.  694.10(a)(2) regarding the extent a 
scholarship awarded to a student attending an IHE on less than a full-
time basis may be reduced.
    We are also proposing to incorporate the statutory definition of an 
eligible student from section 404E(g) of the HEA in both proposed Sec.  
694.13(d) and Sec.  694.14(b). Except for removing the phrase ``early 
intervention'' before the word ``activities'' in the fourth element of 
the definition and requiring that eligible students have participated 
in the new required activities under section 404D(a) (see proposed 
Sec.  694.21) rather than in what had been the early intervention 
activities, section 404(e) of the HEOA did not change the definition of 
this term from what it had been in section 404E(d) of the HEA, as 
previously authorized. While we did not include a definition of 
eligible student in the existing regulations, we believe that including 
a definition of the term that reflects the statutory definition in 
section 404E(g) of the HEA in both proposed regulations would make them 
clearer and more understandable for the public.
    The regulatory language the Department is proposing to include in 
Sec.  694.14(c)(1) and (c)(2) regarding funds that a State grantee must 
hold in reserve for GEAR UP scholarships reflects statutory 
requirements in section 404E(b), (d), and (e) of the HEA, as amended by 
section 404(e) of the HEOA. In addition, in response to a request by 
non-Federal negotiators, we are proposing to clarify, in Sec.  
694.14(c)(3), that grantees must provide scholarships to all eligible 
students under section 404E of the HEA. In this regard, we agree with 
the non-Federal negotiators that the new minimum scholarship provision 
in section 404E(d) of the HEA is intended to ensure that all grantees 
(that receive initial awards on or after August 14, 2008) provide 
scholarships to each eligible student in an amount that is at least the 
Federal Pell Grant minimum. For this reason, we also are proposing in 
Sec.  694.14(c)(3) to prohibit a grantee from establishing additional 
eligibility criteria that would have the effect of limiting or denying 
a scholarship to an eligible student.
    We are proposing to include, in Sec.  694.14(d), regulatory 
language clarifying that a State using a priority approach to select 
participating students (see section 404D(d) of the HEA, as amended by 
section 404(d) of the HEOA) may award scholarships to eligible students 
at any time during the grant award period (rather than holding these 
funds in reserve until the seventh year of the grant award period). We 
do so because under the priority approach, which by law is available 
only to State GEAR UP grantees, initial services may be provided much 
later than seventh grade. Hence, a State grantee that selected students 
using the priority approach would need to be able to award scholarships 
much earlier in its multiyear project period than would a State grantee 
that selected students using a cohort approach.
    The Department's proposal in Sec.  694.14(e), to incorporate the 
requirement that grantees provide information on eligibility 
requirements for scholarships to participating students when they enter 
the GEAR UP program, reflects section 404E(c) of the HEA, as amended by 
404(e) of the HEOA. Similarly, its proposal in Sec.  694.14(f), that 
State grantees must provide scholarships to GEAR UP students attending 
IHEs in the State and may do so to students attending IHEs out-of-
State, reflects section 404E(e)(2) and (g) of the HEA, as amended by 
404(e) of the HEOA. We propose both provisions to help the public 
better understand the various requirements affecting GEAR UP 
scholarships.
    Proposed Sec.  694.14(g) would remove from the current regulations 
the requirement that a State, or a Partnership that chooses to 
participate in the GEAR UP scholarship component in accordance with 
section 404E of the HEA, award continuation scholarships in successive 
award years to each student who received an initial scholarship and who 
continues to be eligible for a scholarship. Rather than mandating this 
action, the proposed regulations would allow a State or Partnership to 
make these awards. We are proposing this change because we believe that 
there may not be sufficient funds available to provide continuation 
scholarships in successive award years to every student who received an 
initial scholarship and continues to be eligible for a scholarship. 
Grants that have sufficient funds to provide continuation scholarships 
to their students would be encouraged to do so.
    Proposed Sec.  694.14(g), regarding the prohibition against 
considering the amount of a GEAR UP scholarship in determining a 
student's eligibility for other grant assistance under Title IV of the 
HEA, and the proviso that the total amount of Federal assistance not 
exceed the student's total cost of attendance, reflects new section 
404E(f) of the HEA (formerly section 404E(e) of the HEA). Here again, 
we propose the provision to help the public better understand the 
various requirements affecting GEAR UP scholarships.
    Finally, proposed Sec.  694.15 would permit a Partnership that does 
not implement the section 404E scholarship component to still provide 
scholarship assistance to GEAR UP students with non-Federal funds as a 
matching

[[Page 13855]]

contribution. Proposed Sec.  694.15 is similar to current Sec.  694.11 
with regard to non-Federal funds. However, proposed Sec.  694.15 omits 
language in the existing regulation that specifically authorizes GEAR 
UP Partnership grantees that do not participate in the section 404E 
scholarship component to use Federal or non-Federal funds for 
scholarships awards as part of their early intervention services. We 
would omit this language because section 404D of the HEA, as amended by 
section 404(d) of the HEOA, no longer authorizes such a use of Federal 
grant funds. We propose to clarify in Sec.  694.15 that these non-
Federal funds may still be used to satisfy the matching requirement.

Redistribution or Return of Unused Scholarship Funds/Reporting on 
Scholarship Monies After the Grant Period

    Statute: Section 404E(e)(4)(A)(i) of the HEA, as amended by section 
404(e)(5) of the HEOA, specifies that grantees may redistribute any 
funds not used by eligible students within six years of their 
completion of secondary school to other eligible students. Section 
404E(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the HEA, as amended, now requires grantees to 
return scholarship funds not used by eligible students within the 
applicable timeframe and not redistributed to other eligible students 
to the Secretary for distribution to other grantees.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: The Department is proposing to add new Sec.  
694.16, and to provide in Sec.  694.16(a) that scholarship funds held 
in reserve by States under Sec.  694.14(c) or by Partnerships under 
section 404D(b)(7) of the HEA, and which are not used by an eligible 
student as defined in Sec.  694.14(b) within six years of the student's 
scheduled completion of secondary school, may be redistributed by the 
grantee to other eligible students. Consistent with section 401(c) of 
Public Law 111-39, proposed Sec.  694.16 would clarify that 
requirements in this section apply only to funds reserved for section 
404E scholarship awards by grantees whose (1) initial GEAR UP grant 
awards were made on or after August 14, 2008, or (2) whose initial GEAR 
UP grant awards were made prior to August 14, 2008, but who, pursuant 
to proposed Sec.  694.12(b)(2), elect to meet the Sec.  694.14 
scholarship requirements (rather than the Sec.  694.13 requirements).
    To implement requirements in section 404E(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the HEA 
governing return of unused funds to the Department, proposed Sec.  
694.16(b) would provide that any Federal scholarship funds that are not 
used by an eligible student within six years of the student's scheduled 
completion of secondary school, and are not redistributed by the 
grantee to other eligible students, must be returned to the Secretary 
within 45 days after the six-year period for expending the scholarship 
funds expires. Furthermore, proposed Sec.  694.16(c) and (d) would 
provide that (1) grantees that reserve funds for scholarships must 
annually furnish information, as the Secretary may require, on the 
amount of Federal and non-Federal funds reserved and held for GEAR UP 
scholarships and the disbursement of these scholarship funds to 
eligible students until these funds are fully expended or returned to 
the Secretary; and (2) a scholarship fund is subject to audit or 
monitoring by authorized representatives of the Secretary throughout 
the life of the fund.
    Reasons: The Department proposes to add new Sec.  694.16 to 
implement the mandates in 404E(e)(4)(A) of the HEA and the technical 
amendments reflected in section 401(c) of Public Law 111-39, as well as 
to promote reasonable fiscal oversight.
    Except for two aspects of the return-of-funds provision in proposed 
Sec.  694.16(b), proposed Sec.  694.16(a) and (b) reflects the 
statutory provisions in section 404E(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the HEA, 
as amended. One way in which paragraph Sec.  694.16(b) supplements the 
statute is the application of the requirement to Federal funds only. 
While section 404E(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the HEA refers only to the return of 
unused scholarship funds held in reserve, we do not believe it would be 
appropriate for the Department to require the return of any unused non-
Federal funds that had been contributed to the GEAR UP scholarship 
fund. For this reason, the language of proposed Sec.  694.16(b) 
reflects our understanding that the statutory provision was intended to 
apply only to unused Federal GEAR UP funds that a grantee holds in 
reserve.
    The other regulatory issue embedded in proposed Sec.  694.16(b)(2) 
concerns when a grantee must return unused Federal funds held in 
reserve to the Department. The Department is proposing to require the 
return of Federal funds within 45 days after the six-year period for 
expending the scholarship funds expires. We believe this time-frame, 
which would be reflected in proposed Sec.  694.16(b), is appropriate 
because the 45-day period is consistent with other Title IV, HEA 
programs.
    In addition, in proposed Sec.  694.16(c), the Department proposes 
to require grantees to annually furnish information, as the Secretary 
may require, on the amount of Federal and non-Federal funds reserved 
and held for GEAR UP scholarships and the disbursement of those funds 
to eligible students until these funds are fully expended or returned 
to the Secretary. We believe that this requirement would increase the 
accountability of grantees as well as the Department's ability to track 
and monitor the large amounts of Federal funds and non-Federal matching 
funds that grantees reserve for GEAR UP scholarships. We understand 
that depending on the amount of scholarship funding to be disbursed 
the, number of eligible recipients, and the scholarship amount each 
recipient would receive, a grantee's reporting period may well extend 
beyond its project period. However, grantees were to have obligated 
these funds during the project period to irrevocable trusts or other 
mechanisms for ultimate disbursal, and the reasonable and necessary 
costs associated with providing the reports that proposed Sec.  
694.16(c) would require would be legitimate administrative expenses 
that grantees or those administering the scholarship funds may charge 
to Federal funds held in reserve. We therefore believe it is reasonable 
to expect all grantees to make arrangements for implementing proposed 
Sec.  694.16 before the end of their project period.
    For similar reasons, the Department also proposes in Sec.  
694.16(d) to clarify that a GEAR UP scholarship fund is subject to 
audit or monitoring by authorized representatives of the Secretary 
throughout the life of the fund. Reasonable and necessary costs 
associated with making appropriate records available for inspection 
after the project period has ended would likewise be legitimate charges 
against Federal funds held in reserve.

21st Century Scholar Certificates

    Statute: Section 404F of the HEA, as amended by 404(f) of the HEOA, 
provides that each GEAR UP grantee must provide a 21st Century Scholar 
Certificate to all participating students served by the project. It 
also provides that the 21st Century Scholar Certificate must be 
personalized for each student and indicate the amount of Federal 
financial aid for college and the estimated amount of any scholarship 
provided under section 404E of the HEA, if applicable, that a student 
may be eligible to receive.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  694.13 addresses 21st Century 
Scholarship Certificates, but does not reflect changes

[[Page 13856]]

made to section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA by the HEOA.
    Proposed Regulations: The Department is proposing to redesignate 
current Sec.  694.13 as proposed Sec.  694.18 and amend newly 
redesignated Sec.  694.18 to (1) specify that the grantee, rather than 
the Department, will prepare the 21st Century Certificate, and (2) 
provide that 21st Century Scholarship Certificates must indicate the 
estimated amount of any scholarship provided under section 404E of the 
HEA, if applicable, that a student may be eligible to receive.
    Reasons: This amendment is necessary to reflect the changes made to 
section 404F(b) of the HEA by section 404(f) of the HEOA.

Requirements Applicable to State GEAR UP Grantees That Serve Students 
Under the National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership 
Program (NEISP)

    Statute: Section 404A of the HEA, as amended by the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1998, provided that in making awards to States 
under this program, the Secretary must ensure that students served 
under this chapter on the day before the date of enactment of the 
Higher Education Amendments of 1998 continue to receive assistance 
through the completion of secondary school. This statutory requirement 
no longer exists in the HEA.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  694.14 provides that any State 
that receives a GEAR UP grant and that served students under the NEISP 
program on October 6, 1998, must continue to provide services under 
this part to those students until they complete secondary school.
    Proposed Regulations: None.
    Reasons: We propose to remove the requirements reflected in current 
Sec.  694.14 because this regulatory provision is obsolete. The NEISP 
program has not been authorized since 1998 and any students served 
under that program are well beyond traditional high school age.
Priority
    Statute: Section 404A(b)(3)(A) of the HEA, as amended by section 
404(a)(2) of the HEOA, gives a priority in funding to a State that (1) 
has carried out successful GEAR UP programs prior to enactment of the 
HEOA, and (2) has a prior, demonstrated commitment to early 
intervention leading to college access through collaboration and 
replication of successful strategies. Section 404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA, 
as amended, provides that, in making GEAR UP grant awards to States, 
the Secretary must ensure that students served under the GEAR UP 
program prior to the enactment of the HEOA continue to receive 
assistance through the completion of secondary school.
    Current Regulations: Current Sec.  694.15 is the regulatory 
provision that specifies the priorities the Secretary establishes for 
the GEAR UP program. It does not reflect the changes made by the HEOA 
to the statutorily required priorities.
    Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would redesignate 
current Sec.  694.15 (What priorities does the Secretary establish for 
a GEAR UP grant?) as proposed Sec.  694.19 to accommodate the proposed 
addition of other regulatory provisions, as discussed elsewhere in this 
preamble. Under newly redesignated Sec.  694.19, the Secretary would 
award competitive preference priority points to an eligible applicant 
for a State GEAR UP grant that has both carried out a successful State 
GEAR UP grant prior to August 14, 2008, and prior, demonstrated 
commitment to early intervention leading to college access through 
collaboration and replication of successful strategies. Under proposed 
Sec.  694.19(a), whether a State GEAR UP grant is deemed successful 
would be determined on the basis of data (including outcome data) 
submitted by the applicant as part of its annual and final performance 
reports, and the applicant's history of compliance with applicable 
statutory and regulatory requirements relating to the grant.
    Reasons: We are proposing to revise newly redesignated Sec.  
694.19, which addresses the priorities the Secretary establishes for a 
GEAR UP grant, to reflect the changes made by the HEOA to section 
404A(b)(3)(A) of the HEA. In order to notify the public of how these 
priorities will work, we propose to clarify that the Department will 
implement these statutorily required priorities by using them as 
competitive preference priorities in the award-making process. In 
addition, in response to comments received from non-Federal 
negotiators, we are proposing to specify in this section how the 
Department will determine whether a State GEAR UP grant has been 
``successful'' under section 404A(b)(3)(A)(i) of the HEA. Thus, 
proposed Sec.  694.19(a) would specify that the Secretary will 
determine whether a GEAR UP grant has been successful based upon data 
(including outcome data) submitted as part of the applicant's annual 
and final performance reports for the grant it previously carried out, 
and its history of compliance with statutory and regulatory 
requirements relating to that grant. The Secretary would determine the 
extent to which an applicant has a ``prior, demonstrated commitment to 
early intervention leading to college access through collaboration and 
replication of successful strategies'' on the basis of information 
included in its GEAR UP application.
    More information about the award process, including the priorities 
given in the competitions for State GEAR UP grants, may be included in 
the notices inviting applications for the State GEAR UP grant 
competitions that the Department publishes in the Federal Register. 
However, we believe that general information about how the priorities 
will be implemented (i.e., as competitive preference priorities), and 
how the Department will assess whether an applicant has carried out a 
successful State GEAR UP Grant prior to August 14, 2008, are best 
addressed in the program regulations. Proposed Sec.  694.19 would 
incorporate language from section 404A(b)(3)(A) of the HEA, but not the 
requirement in section 404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA that the Secretary 
ensure that students served by State GEAR UP grants before the 
enactment of the HEOA continue to receive services through completion 
of secondary school. Though this requirement appears in the same 
statutory section as the priority that is given to eligible entities 
for a State GEAR UP grant, the statutory language does not require the 
Secretary to give a priority to eligible entities that would continue 
to serve these students. The requirement in section 404a(b)(3)(B) of 
the HEA is addressed in more detail under the Continuity of Student 
Services section elsewhere in this preamble.

Duration of Awards

    Statute: Section 404A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by section 
404(a)(2) of the HEOA, provides that the Secretary may award a GEAR UP 
grant for six years or, seven years in the case of a State or 
Partnership that applies for a seven-year GEAR UP grant to enable it to 
provide services to a student through the student's first year of 
attendance at an IHE.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: The Department is proposing to add Sec.  
694.20 and Sec.  694.24. Specifically, proposed Sec.  694.20(a) would 
provide that the Secretary authorizes an eligible State or Partnership 
to provide GEAR UP services to students attending an IHE if the State 
or Partnership (1) applies for and is awarded a new award after August 
14, 2008, and (2) in its application, requests a seventh year so that 
it may continue to provide services to students through their first 
year of

[[Page 13857]]

attendance at an IHE. Proposed Sec.  694.20(b) would specify that a 
State grantee that uses a priority (rather than or in addition to a 
cohort) approach to identify participating students may, consistent 
with its approved application and at any time during the project 
period, provide services to students during their first year of 
attendance at an IHE, as long as the grantee continues to provide all 
required early intervention services throughout the Federal budget 
period. Proposed Sec.  694.20(c) provides that if a grantee is awarded 
a seven year grant, consistent with the grantee's approved application, 
during the seventh year of the grant the grantee (1) would need to 
provide services to students in their first year of attendance at an 
IHE; and (2) may choose to provide services to high school students who 
have yet to graduate. Proposed Sec.  694.20(d) provides that grantees 
that continue to provide services to students through their first year 
of attendance at an IHE must, to the extent practicable, coordinate 
with other campus programs, including academic support services to 
enhance, not duplicate service.
    Finally, Sec.  694.24 would clarify that, consistent with its 
approved applications and Sec.  694.20, a GEAR UP grantee may provide 
any services to students in their first year of attendance at an IHE 
that will help those students succeed in school, and that do not 
duplicate services otherwise available to them. The proposed regulation 
would also provide a large number of specific examples of such 
services.
    Reasons: Throughout the negotiating rulemaking process, the 
Department sought feedback from the non-Federal negotiators on: (1) 
Whether we should regulate on the types of services that should be 
provided by GEAR UP grantees during the seventh year of the grant and 
to whom those services should be provided, (2) whether GEAR UP grantees 
that are providing a seventh year of services should be required to 
serve a certain percentage of their students during the seventh year, 
(3) whether GEAR UP grantees should be required to collaborate with 
other providers (such as TRIO grantees) when providing services during 
the seventh year, and (4) whether GEAR UP grantees using a multiple 
cohort approach should be able to serve students in high school during 
a seventh year.
    In response to comments provided by non-Federal negotiators and 
tentative agreement reached by the Committee, the Department has 
proposed to add new Sec.  694.20. The proposal reflects the language of 
section 404A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended, which authorizes GEAR UP 
funding for this seventh project year only for new grantees. We are 
proposing to include, in Sec.  694.20(a), language that clarifies that 
in order to be eligible for a seventh year of funding, State or 
Partnership applicants must apply for and be awarded a new GEAR UP 
grant after August 14, 2008, and must request in their applications a 
seventh year of funding to provide services to students through their 
first year of attendance at an IHE. We propose to include this 
provision to be consistent with section 404A(b)(2) of the HEA, and to 
ensure that grantees from the very beginning have planned to implement 
strong student services in the seventh year of the grant.
    Just as proposed Sec.  694.14(d) would permit grantees using the 
priority approach (rather than or in addition to a cohort approach) to 
provide scholarship awards before the seventh year, under Sec.  
694.20(b) grantees using a priority approach would be able to serve 
students in their first year of attendance at an IHE before the seventh 
year of the grant. The provision would simply require that provision of 
these services (1) is consistent with the grantees' approved 
application, and (2) does not undermine grantees' provision of all 
required services throughout the Federal budget period to GEAR UP 
students still enrolled in a local educational agency. We propose the 
latter condition in order not to detract from the basic purpose of GEAR 
UP--to help increase the numbers of students in economically deprived 
areas get ready for, and enroll in, postsecondary education.
    Proposed Sec.  694.20(c) would specify that if a grantee is awarded 
a seventh year of GEAR UP funding, the grantee must provide services to 
students in their first year of attendance at an IHE, and may choose to 
provide services to high school students who have yet to graduate. 
While the provision would have limited applicability to projects that 
use the cohort approach, we are proposing it specifically to allow 
grantees that are serving multiple cohorts of students to continue 
providing services to students who are in high school during the 
seventh year of the project period. The Department believes that this 
approach will encourage continuity of services to all students served 
by the grant.
    Non-Federal negotiators expressed the belief that proper 
coordination between GEAR UP grantees and available campus programs is 
important so that GEAR UP students are provided the supports they need, 
and limited GEAR UP funds enhance rather than duplicate services 
available to GEAR UP students after enrollment in an IHE. Some 
negotiators also expressed the belief that various factors, including 
the distance between IHEs graduates would attend and the grantee, the 
number of different IHEs that graduates would attend, and a grantee's 
efforts to obtain information about and coordinate with the providers 
of other services at those IHEs, could create significant challenges. 
We agree with both of these considerations, and in balancing them 
propose Sec.  694.20(d). This provision would require GEAR UP grantees 
that continue to provide services to students through their first year 
of attendance at an IHE to coordinate, to the extent practicable, with 
other campus programs to enhance, not duplicate services. We propose to 
identify academic support services as one kind of other campus programs 
given the pivotal role of academic support to many GEAR UP students.
    Finally, we propose to add new Sec.  694.24 to provide examples of 
the types of services that a grantee may provide to students in their 
first year of attendance at an IHE and to list examples of these 
services. We believe that this information would be helpful to 
applicants and grantees as they plan and implement the type of IHE-
level services that are most appropriate for each GEAR UP student.

Required and Allowable Activities

    Statute: Section 404D of the HEA, as amended by section 404(d) of 
the HEOA, modifies the GEAR UP program statute by identifying certain 
activities and services that GEAR UP grantees must provide, and other 
activities and services that are permissible and thus ones that 
projects may offer using GEAR UP funds.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: The Department is proposing to add Sec. Sec.  
694.21, 694.22, 694.23, and 694.24 to address required and allowable 
activities. Proposed Sec.  694.21 would identify the services that, 
under section 404D(a) of the HEA, all GEAR UP projects must offer. 
Consistent with section 404D(b) of the HEA, proposed Sec.  694.22 would 
list examples of other services and activities that all GEAR UP 
projects may provide. Proposed Sec.  694.23 would incorporate the 
language from 404D(c) of the HEA, and describe additional activities 
that are allowable for State GEAR UP projects. Finally, as noted 
elsewhere in this preamble, proposed Sec.  694.24 would describe the 
additional services that, consistent with proposed Sec.  694.20 and its 
approved application, a GEAR UP project may provide to students in 
their first year of attendance at an IHE.

[[Page 13858]]

    Reasons: Currently, the GEAR UP program regulations do not list 
examples of permissible or required GEAR UP services or activities. The 
non-Federal negotiators suggested--and we agreed--that it would be 
helpful for applicants and grantees if the Department included in its 
GEAR UP regulations the examples of required and allowable activities 
provided in section 404D of the HEA. Also, based on suggestions from 
the non-Federal negotiators, we are proposing to separate the required 
and permissible activities into multiple regulatory sections. We 
believe that this structure will increase the clarity and 
comprehensibility of the regulatory language for applicants and 
grantees.
    For the most part, proposed Sec. Sec.  694.21, 694.22, and 694.23 
would reflect the statutory language in section 404D(a) through (c) of 
the HEA. In addition to a few minor, non-substantive differences 
between these regulations and that statutory provision, please note the 
following.
    First, section 404D(a)(4) of the HEA would require a State grantee 
to provide for the scholarships under section 404E. We are concerned 
that some will question whether this provision requires States to use 
GEAR UP funds for GEAR UP scholarships even though section 404E(b) 
permits the Secretary to waive the requirement that GEAR UP funds be 
used for scholarships if the State demonstrates that it has another 
means of providing the financial assistance section 404 requires, and 
describes such means in its program application. To avoid any 
confusion, we have included the exception for this State ``waiver'' in 
proposed Sec.  694.21(d).
    Furthermore, in response to the suggestion of a non-Federal 
negotiator, we would clarify in proposed Sec.  694.22(e)(4) that the 
work grantees may perform in assisting GEAR UP students to develop 
their graduation and career plans may include activities related to 
helping students with career awareness and planning activities as they 
relate to a rigorous academic curriculum. We believe that providing 
examples of what graduation and career plans may include would both 
enhance the understanding of the public, as well as GEAR UP applicants 
and grantees, of the types of services that may be provided in this 
area, and foster creativity with regard to grantees' provision of 
career-related services.
    In addition, non-Federal negotiators expressed concerns that the 
statutory language in section 404D of the HEA was ambiguous as to 
whether the costs of administering a scholarship fund are allowable. 
The HEA specifies in 404(C)(c)(1)(B) that the costs of administering a 
scholarship program may count towards the matching requirement, but the 
HEA does not speak directly to whether Federal funds may be used to 
support scholarship administration. We believe that such costs of 
administering authorized activities are allowable under applicable cost 
principles contained in OMB Circulars A-21 and A-87. However, to 
clarify the matter, we have included in proposed Sec.  694.22(g) the 
express authority for grantees to use GEAR UP funds to support the 
costs of administering a scholarship program.
    As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we propose to add Sec.  
694.24 to explain the types of services that a grantee may provide to 
GEAR UP students in their first year of attendance at an IHE and to 
list examples of these services. We believe that this information will 
be helpful to applicants and grantees as they evaluate the type of 
services that are appropriate to provide to these students.

Continuity of Student Services

    Statute: Section 404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA, as amended by section 
404(a)(2) of the HEOA, provides that in making awards to eligible 
States, the Secretary must ensure that students served under the GEAR 
UP program prior to the enactment of the HEOA continue to receive 
assistance through the completion of secondary school. Section 
404B(d)(1)(C) of the HEA, as amended by section 404(b) of the HEOA, 
further requires the Secretary to ensure that eligible Partnerships 
provide services to students who received services under a previous 
GEAR UP grant award but have not yet completed the 12th grade. Prior to 
the enactment of the HEOA, there was no requirement for either State or 
Partnership grantees to serve students served under a previous grant.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: The Department is proposing to add Sec.  
694.25 to implement sections 404A(b)(3)(B) and 404B(d)(1)(C) of the 
HEA. In doing so we are proposing that the provisions have effect only 
where the initial and subsequent grants are both awarded on or after 
August 14, 2008, the effective date of the HEOA. Specifically, proposed 
Sec.  694.25 would provide that if (1) a Partnership or State is 
awarded a GEAR UP grant on or after that date (i.e., initial grant), 
(2) the grant ends before all students who received GEAR UP services 
under the grant have completed the twelfth grade, and (3) the grantee 
receives a new award in a subsequent GEAR UP competition (i.e., new 
grant), the grantee must continue to provide services required by Sec.  
694.21 and authorized under Sec. Sec.  694.22 and 694.23 to all 
students who received GEAR UP services under the initial grant and 
remain enrolled in secondary schools until they complete the twelfth 
grade. The grantee would be able to provide these services by using 
GEAR UP funds awarded for the new grant or funds from the non-Federal 
matching contribution required under the new grant.
    Reasons: We are proposing to add Sec.  694.25 to implement and 
clarify sections 404A(b)(3)(B) and 404B(d)(1)(C) of the HEA, as amended 
by sections 404(a)(2) and 404(b) of the HEOA, respectively.
    Section 404A(b)(3)(B) of the HEA provides that in making awards to 
eligible State grantees, the Secretary will ensure that GEAR UP 
students served on the day before the date of enactment of the HEOA 
continue to receive assistance through the completion of secondary 
school. Absent legislative language to the contrary, we interpret the 
phrase ``making awards'' in this section as referring to making new 
GEAR UP awards. We do so because, without evidence of congressional 
intent that the new requirement apply to continuation awards for 
grantees that had received initial GEAR UP grants prior to the date of 
enactment of the HEOA, we do not believe Congress intended that 
grantees should assume the costs and burdens of activities newly 
required in the HEOA that they had no legal responsibility to bear when 
they applied for their GEAR UP grants before the enactment of the HEOA. 
For this reason, with regard to State GEAR UP grants, proposed Sec.  
694.25 would apply only to recipients of new grants.
    Proposed Sec.  694.25 would contain a similar requirement for 
Partnerships that receive new GEAR UP awards. Prior to the changes made 
by the HEOA, a Partnership grantee was not required to continue to 
assist students who had not completed the 12th grade after the project 
period ended. As we stated in the preceding paragraph, in the absence 
of clear legislative intent that Congress intended to impose the costs 
and burdens of activities newly required in the HEOA on recipients of 
GEAR UP continuation grants, we do not believe we can impose such a 
requirement. For this reason, with regard to Partnership GEAR UP 
grants, proposed Sec.  694.25 similarly would apply only to recipients 
of new grants.
    With regard to States and Partnerships that receive an initial GEAR 
UP grant on or after August 14, 2008, the date of enactment of the 
HEOA, we interpret sections 404A(b)(3)(B) and 404B(d)(1)(C) of the HEA 
to require those grantees to

[[Page 13859]]

continue to provide services required by Sec.  694.21 and authorized 
under Sec. Sec.  694.22 and 694.23 to those students who are enrolled 
in secondary schools until they complete the twelfth grade if (1) the 
initial grant ends before all students who received GEAR UP services 
under the grant have completed the twelfth grade, and (2) the grantee 
receives a new award in a subsequent GEAR UP competition.
    We do not interpret sections 404A(b)(3)(B) and 404B(d)(1)(C) of the 
HEA to require grantees to provide Federal GEAR UP services outside of 
the six- or seven-year grant period for the Federal GEAR UP award (see 
section 404A(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by section 404(a)(2) of the 
HEOA) because this would result in an untenable situation. We believe 
that this situation would be untenable because, were the Secretary to 
interpret the law as applying outside of the six- or seven-year 
authorized grant period, the Secretary would be mandating specific 
grantee action without the ability to adequately enforce the 
requirement. In this regard, the only means the Secretary would have 
available to seek enforcement of these provisions, including any needed 
grantee reporting and follow-up, would be to use formal administrative 
and judicial procedures to seek the return of Federal GEAR UP funds 
years after their expenditure. Absent evidence to the contrary, we do 
not believe that the Congress intended the statute to have this effect.
    Therefore, proposed Sec.  694.25 provides that only a grantee that 
receive both an initial and new award on or after August 14, 2008, 
must, during the Federal funding period, continue to provide GEAR UP 
services to students who received services under the previous GEAR UP 
grant award but have not yet completed the twelfth grade.

Executive Order 12866

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to the 
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to 
result in a rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy of 
$100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities in a 
material way (also referred to as an ``economically significant'' 
rule); (2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the 
budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or 
the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order. 
Pursuant to the Executive order, it has been determined that this 
regulatory action will have an annual effect on the economy of more 
than $100 million because the amount of government transfers provided 
through these discretionary grant programs will exceed that amount. 
Therefore, this action is ``economically significant'' and subject to 
OMB review under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive order.
    The potential costs associated with this proposed regulatory action 
are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have 
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and 
efficiently.
    In assessing the potential costs and benefits of this proposed 
regulatory action, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed 
priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria justify 
the costs.
    We have determined, also, that this proposed regulatory action does 
not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.

HEP and CAMP Programs

    The Secretary has concluded that there is no need to discuss the 
changes to the regulations for HEP and CAMP in the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis because the changes to regulations for these programs were 
minor. The most significant changes to these regulations address who 
can be considered an immediate family member of a migrant individual in 
order to be eligible for program services. The Department determined 
that providing clarity to the term ``immediate family member'' would 
help ensure there is a uniform standard of eligibility for these 
programs.

Federal TRIO Programs

Need for Federal Regulatory Action

    These proposed Federal TRIO program regulations are needed to 
implement provisions of the HEOA, which changed certain features of the 
TRIO program. In proposing these regulations, the Secretary has 
endeavored to regulate only where necessary, and in ways that to the 
extent possible reflect the recommendations of the non-Federal 
negotiators:
    <bullet> Number of Applications: The HEA stipulates that entities 
may submit multiple applications for grants under each TRIO program 
``if the additional applications describe programs serving different 
populations or different campuses.'' The HEA, as amended by the HEOA, 
defines ``different populations'' and ``different campuses.''
    <bullet> Section 643.30: Rigorous Secondary School Program of 
Study: The HEOA modified the HEA's outcome criteria for Talent Search 
by adding the completion of a ``rigorous secondary school program of 
study'' as one of the criteria to be considered in calculating prior 
experience points.
    <bullet> Section 643.32: Changes to Minimum Number of Participants 
Served in Talent Search: In order to provide it with greater 
flexibility to establish the minimum number of participants in each TS 
grant competition, the Department proposes to eliminate the current 
regulatory requirement that TS projects serve a minimum number of 
individuals.
    <bullet> Sections 643.30, 644.30, 645.40, 646.30, 647.30: Changes 
to Allowable Costs (Computer Hardware and Software) 
(TS)(EOC)(UB)(SSS)(McNair): The requirement that grantees must seek 
prior approval for purchases of computer equipment was not addressed in 
the statute. However, during negotiated rulemaking, negotiators reached 
a consensus that computer equipment and software are necessary costs 
for grantees to deliver services. Accordingly, the Department proposes 
to change its regulations with respect to the purchase of computer 
equipment.

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

Sections 643.7, 646.7, 643.10, 644.10, 645.20, 646.10, 647.10: Number 
of Applications: Branch Campuses and Different Populations

    The HEA stipulates that entities may submit multiple applications 
``if the additional applications describe programs serving different 
populations or different campuses.'' Section 402A(h)(1) and (2) of the 
HEA defines ``different campus'' and ``different population.'' A 
``different campus'' is defined as a site of an institution of higher 
education that: Is geographically apart from the main campus of the 
institution; is permanent in nature; and offers courses in educational 
programs leading to a degree, certificate, or other recognized 
credential. A ``different population'' is defined in section 402A(h)(2) 
of the HEA as a group of individuals that an eligible entity

[[Page 13860]]

desires to serve through an application for a TRIO grant that is: 
Separate and distinct from any other population that the entity has 
applied for a TRIO grant; and while sharing some of the same needs as 
another population that the entity has applied to serve, has distinct 
needs for specialized services.
    The proposed regulations would clarify that, for the purposes of 
the TS and UB programs, applicants will be allowed to submit multiple 
applications if they plan to serve different target schools. For the 
SSS and McNair programs, applicants can submit multiple applications if 
they propose to serve different campuses.
    The proposed regulations would use a definition of ``different 
campus'' that is different from the definition of ``different campus'' 
currently included in the SSS regulations. Current SSS regulations 
require a ``different campus'' to have separate budget and hiring 
authority to be an eligible applicant. However, HEA, as amended by 
HEOA, defined ``different campus'' as a site of an institution of 
higher education that is: ``geographically apart from the main campus 
of the institution,'' ``permanent,'' and one that offers courses 
leading to an educational credential. The proposed regulations would 
implement this definition in accordance with the amended statute. With 
respect to the implementation of the HEA's definition of ``different 
populations,'' initially, during the negotiated rulemaking sessions, 
the Department proposed to implement this change consistent with its 
current practice. Currently, all of the TRIO programs except for SSS 
prohibit an applicant from submitting an application proposing to serve 
a different population within the same target area, school, campus, 
etc. The SSS program allows an entity to submit a separate application 
to serve individuals with disabilities. However, the non-Federal 
negotiators disagreed with this approach and argued that the HEA 
permits applicants to submit multiple applications that propose to 
serve different populations, even in the same target area, school, or 
campus. Ultimately, the Secretary agreed with the non-Federal 
negotiators. Under the proposed regulations, therefore, an applicant 
planning to serve a separate population would be permitted under 
certain circumstances to apply for a separate grant to serve this 
population even if it also applies to serve a different population of 
students on the same campus.
    While grantees must be able to serve more students and to tailor 
services to meet the distinct needs of different populations the 
Department needs to establish some limitations on the number of 
separate applications an eligible entity may submit for each 
competition. Without such limitations, adding the definition of the 
term different population to the regulations could have the unintended 
consequence of disproportionately increasing funding at some 
institutions, agencies, and organizations that submit several 
applications while limiting the funds available to expand program 
services to other areas, schools, and institutions. To mitigate this 
risk and to ensure fairness and consistency in the application process, 
the Department proposes to amend the regulations for each of the TRIO 
programs to provide that the Department will define, for each 
competition, the different populations of participants for which an 
eligible entity can submit separate applications and publish this 
information in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and 
other application materials for the competition.
    This approach would give the Department the flexibility to 
designate the different populations for each competition based on 
changing national needs. It also would permit the Department to more 
effectively manage the program competitions within the available 
resources.
    For these reasons, under the proposed regulations, an entity 
applying for more than one grant under the TS, EOC, and UB programs 
would be able to submit separate applications to serve different target 
areas and different target schools, and would also be able to submit 
separate applications to serve one or more of the different populations 
of participants designated in the Federal Register notice inviting 
applications. Entities applying for grants under the SSS and McNair 
programs would be able to submit separate applications to serve 
different campuses and would also be able to submit separate 
applications to serve one or more of the different populations of 
participants designated in the Federal Register notice inviting 
applications for the competition.
    These regulatory changes are expected to increase the number of 
grant applications for SSS (and other TRIO) grants. For the SSS 
program, the Department estimates an increase of about 450 applicants 
(from 1,200 to 1,650) for each competition. With 450 new applicants 
devoting approximately 34 hours to the process, the Department expects 
that the amount of money spent on applications by applicants would 
increase by $742,950. (Note, however, that the cost to individual 
applicants is not expected to increase).

                  Increase in Aggregate Applicant Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Estimated
             Burden                    Calculations          increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professional Staff.............  (450 additional                $546,750
                                  applications * 27
                                  hours * $30 per hour)
                                  + Overhead at 50% of
                                  salary.
Clerical Staff.................  (450 additional                  56,700
                                  applications * 7 hours
                                  * $12 per hour) +
                                  Overhead at 50% of
                                  salary.
Use of Computer Equipment......  450 additional                   94,500
                                  applications * ($200
                                  for computer time +
                                  $10 for printing).
Operation Cost.................  450 additional                   45,000
                                  applications * $100
                                  cost of finding and
                                  maintaining
                                  application materials.
                                                         ---------------
    Total......................  .......................         742,950
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost estimations are based on the ``Supporting Statement for the
  Application for Grants Under the Student Support Services Program,
  HEOA of 2008, Title IV-A.''

    In addition, the cost of administering SSS grant competition would 
likely increase. In particular, the Department estimates that variable 
costs of processing and reviewing applications will increase 37.5 
percent. The cost of retaining outside reviewers should increase to 
$555,000 from $404,000 while application processing costs should 
increase from approximately $25,000 to $34,560. Costs associated with 
staff time for conducting the supervised review process are expected to 
increase from $377,000 to $518,000. Finally, costs associated with 
financing

[[Page 13861]]

workshops, field reading and slate preparation are expected to increase 
from $917,000 to $1,260,625. In sum, the Department estimates the 
expected increase in grant applications to increase administration 
costs by approximately $646,000.

                 Increase in Cost to Federal Government
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Estimated
             Burden                    Calculations          increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field Reviewers................  Proportional increase          $151,364
                                  in field reviewers as
                                  a result of increase
                                  in applications *
                                  $1,100 ($1,000
                                  honorarium, $100 for
                                  expenses).
Processing applications........  Proportional increase             9,426
                                  in staff or staff
                                  hours as a result of
                                  increase in
                                  applications.
Contractor logistical support    Proportional increase           343,807
 for workshops, achieving prior   in contract costs as a
 unfunded applications,           result of increase in
 application processing, field    applications.
 reading and slate preparation.
Staff time for conducting        Proportional increase           141,382
 supervised review.               in staff costs hours
                                  as a result of
                                  increase in
                                  applications.
                                                         ---------------
    Total......................  .......................         645,978
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost estimations are based on the ``Supporting Statement for the
  Application for Grants Under the Student Support Services Program,
  HEOA of 2008, Title IV-A.''

    The primary beneficiaries of the regulatory change related to 
different populations will be students with special needs. To the 
extent that college completion strategies vary across different 
populations of students, allowing applicants to submit separate 
applications for different populations would increase the delivery of 
the right kinds of services to students. SSS projects geared 
specifically towards ESL students, for instance, would be able to 
provide highly specialized services to these students in a more 
efficient and effective manner than would a general SSS project.

Section 643.30: Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study: Adding 
Tuition as an Allowable Cost in the TS Program

    The HEOA modified the HEA's outcome criteria for the TS program. 
These outcome criteria are used to determine the award of prior 
experience points for grantees that choose to apply for future awards. 
One of the new outcome criteria added to the statute requires grantees 
to report on the number of all TS participants who complete a rigorous 
secondary school program of study that will make the students eligible 
for Academic Competitiveness Grants (ACG). This new statutory criterion 
in and of itself does not require that TS projects provide more 
intensive services: It could be interpreted simply as requiring the 
Department to track whether TS students, with proper counseling on 
course selection and with referrals to tutoring services, enroll in the 
coursework that would qualify them for an ACG grant. (In most States, 
students can qualify for an ACG grant if they complete four years of 
English; three years of mathematics, including algebra I and a higher-
level class such as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and 
statistics; three years of science, including at least two of three 
specific courses, biology, chemistry, and physics; three years of 
social studies; and one year of a language other than English. Under 
the ACG program, there are other options for meeting the rigorous 
course of study requirement, including taking International 
Baccalaureate or Advanced Placement courses.)
    Non-Federal negotiators contended that some schools served by TS 
grantees do not provide the type of curriculum necessary for students 
to meet the requirements of a ``rigorous secondary school program of 
study.'' Consequently, they argued, grantees serving students in these 
schools are at a disadvantage with respect to meeting this criterion. 
They specifically requested that grantees be permitted to use grant 
funds to enable participants in the TS program to attend classes at 
other schools to help grantees satisfactorily meet this new outcome 
criterion. For example, a TS grantee would be permitted to provide 
funds to a student whose high school offers only biology and not 
chemistry or physics so that the student could attend a local community 
college or take an online course to take chemistry or physics.
    During the negotiated rulemaking sessions, the negotiators did not 
reach agreement on this issue. The Department has decided to propose to 
allow TS grantees to use grant funds to pay a participant's tuition for 
a course that is part of a rigorous secondary school program of study 
if a similar course is not offered at a school within his or her LEA 
provided that several conditions are met. The Department has also 
decided to propose regulations that would allow TS grantees to pay for 
a student's transportation to a school not regularly attended by that 
student in order for that student to take a course that is part of a 
rigorous program of study.
    To determine the impact of these proposed regulations, we need to 
estimate the number of TS participants who do not have access to a 
rigorous secondary school program of study at their high school and the 
cost of providing these participants with the requisite curriculum 
(whether through tuition or transportation). We also need to estimate 
the extent to which grantees that are serving schools with these 
participants would elect to incur these costs because, under the 
proposed rules, grantees would not required to provide tuition or 
transportation assistance.
    According to recent program data from the ACG 2007-2008 End of the 
Year Report, 54 percent of ACG recipients qualified under a rigorous 
coursework component, 41 percent under a State designated curriculum, 
and four percent under the Advanced Placement or International 
Baccalaureate Program courses. The Department does not have data on the 
availability of curricula that would satisfy the rigorous secondary 
school program of study requirement. Therefore, we are asking the 
public for data on the extent to which rigorous coursework offerings 
that would meet the ACG requirements are not available at the schools 
or areas that are targeted under the TS program and the number of 
potential TS participants in these schools or areas that would be 
unable to meet the requirements because of the unavailability of the 
curriculum.

[[Page 13862]]

    Although we do not have data on the number of affected students, we 
do have some data on the cost of providing tuition assistance. Based on 
data collected by the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) 
in 2008, we estimate that the cost of providing a student with one 
course per semester, including required textbooks, would be 
approximately $560 to $1,280. AACC data indicate that the per credit 
costs for public community college ranges from about $20 in California 
to $180 in Vermont. This compares to an average grantee cost per TS 
participant of approximately $402 in 2008, which means that the 
opportunity cost of providing tuition for one TS participant to take 
one class at a community college is roughly equal to what it costs on 
average to serve 1 to 3 additional participants under the TS program 
prior to the enactment of HEOA. Because we do not know the extent to 
which grantees would elect to use funds for this purpose or the actual 
costs of providing access to this coursework, we are asking current TS 
grantees to provide estimates regarding the amount of the project 
budget that might be used for tuition and the estimated number of 
participants that might benefit each year from this service if the 
grantee elected to provide it. These data would enable us to better 
estimate the effect of using TS funds for this purpose on program 
measures, including the cost per successful outcome.
    With respect to the benefits of this proposed regulatory change, 
the Secretary believes that students enrolled in schools with curricula 
that do not meet the State's definition of a rigorous program of study 
will be the primary beneficiaries. TS participants in schools that do 
not offer all of coursework needed to satisfy this requirement (e.g., a 
physics or chemistry course) may be afforded the opportunity to take 
such coursework at a local institution of higher education. Given the 
body of research suggesting that students who take rigorous classes in 
high school are more likely to enroll in and complete postsecondary 
education, providing this benefit to TS participants could improve 
their educational outcomes. A 2003 GAO report, for instance, reported 
that students taking a highly rigorous secondary school program of 
study were 1.7 times more likely to earn a bachelor's degree than 
students that took a basic high school curriculum.\1\ However, grantees 
will need to balance the opportunity costs of providing these 
opportunities to individual students with the expected educational 
benefits to avoid an unnecessary increase in the cost of successful 
outcomes under this program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ GAO, ``Additional Efforts Could Help Education With its 
Education Goals,'' May 2003. (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03568.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 643.32: Changes to Minimum Number of Participants Served in 
Talent Search

    The proposed regulations would remove the regulatory requirement 
that TS projects serve a minimum number of individuals. Current 
regulations require that any grantee receiving an award of $180,000 or 
more must serve a minimum of 600 individuals. The Department proposes 
to remove this requirement.
    The Department proposes to take this action to provide it 
flexibility in each competition to establish the number of 
participants, and to adjust these numbers in subsequent competitions 
based on experience, cost analyses, and other factors.
    The Department is committed to encouraging TS grantees to identify 
and adopt the most cost-effective strategies for disadvantaged youth to 
complete secondary school programs, enroll in or reenter education 
programs at the postsecondary level, and complete postsecondary 
education programs. The Department intends to design future TS grant 
competitions to achieve this objective. Future grant competition 
notices will set parameters that are consistent with the statute to 
encourage adoption of cost effective practices using the best available 
evidence. This may include setting a minimum number of program 
participants for each competition to promote adoption of cost-effective 
practices.
    The Department intends to address the number of participants a TS 
project will be expected to serve each year of the grant cycle through 
the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the competition. 
The Department also intends to establish a per-participant cost in the 
Federal Register notice that would be used to determine the amount of 
the grant for an applicant proposing to serve fewer participants than 
required for the minimum grant award for the competition.

Sections 643.30, 644.30, 645.40, 646.30, 647.30: Changes to Allowable 
Costs (Computer Hardware and Software) (TS)(EOC)(UB)(SSS)(McNair)

    Under the proposed regulations, TRIO projects no longer would be 
required to obtain the Secretary's approval before purchasing computer 
and software equipment. This regulatory change would remove 
administrative costs associated with obtaining this approval.

GEAR UP

Need for Federal Regulatory Action

    The proposed GEAR UP regulations are needed to implement provisions 
of the HEOA, which changed certain features of the GEAR UP program. We 
identify those statutory changes that have prompted us to propose 
significant changes in regulations. In proposing these regulations, the 
Secretary has endeavored to regulate only where necessary, and in ways 
that to the extent possible reflect the recommendations of the non-
Federal negotiators:
    <bullet> Section 694.19--Priority: Section 404A(b)(3)(A) of the HEA 
now requires that priority be given to those States that have ``carried 
out successful [GEAR UP] programs'' prior to enactment of HEOA, and 
have a ``prior, demonstrated commitment to early intervention leading 
to college access through collaboration and replication of successful 
strategies.''
    <bullet> Section 694.8--Waiver of Matching Requirements: Section 
404C(b)(2) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, permits the Secretary to 
waive the matching requirement for a Partnership in whole or in part 
if, at the time of application, the Partnership (a) demonstrates 
significant economic hardship that precludes it from meeting the 
matching requirement, or requests that its contributions to the 
scholarship fund under section 404E of the HEA be matched on a two-for-
one basis. Section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA also permits the Secretary to 
waive the matching requirement for any Partnership grantee that 
demonstrates that the matching funds described in its application are 
not available, and that it has exhausted all revenues for replacing 
these matching funds.
    <bullet> Sections Sec.  694.12 and Sec.  694.13--Scholarship 
Component: Section 404E(e)(1) of the HEA, as amended by HEOA, requires 
each State grantee to reserve an amount of money that is not less than 
the minimum scholarship amount described in section 404E(d) of the HEA, 
multiplied by the number of students the grantee estimates will 
complete a secondary school diploma or its equivalent as may be 
required for the students' admission at an IHE, and enroll in an IHE. 
The Department interprets this new statutory provision along with the 
new requirement in section 404E(d) of the HEA that all eligible 
students (as defined in section 404E(g) of the HEA), whether served by 
a State or Partnership grantee, who enroll in an IHE receive at least 
the minimum Federal Pell Grant award, to require any GEAR UP grantee 
subject to the section 404E requirements to

[[Page 13863]]

provide this minimum award to all GEAR UP students enrolled in an IHE. 
This statutory change led the Department to revisit its current 
regulations governing the provision of continuation scholarships.
    <bullet> Section Sec.  694.16--Return of Unused Scholarship Funds: 
Section 404(e)(4)(A)(ii) of the HEA, as amended by HEOA, now requires 
State grantees either to redistribute to other eligible students 
scholarship funds that are not used by eligible students within six 
years of the student's completion of secondary school or return those 
funds to the Secretary for distribution to other grantees in accordance 
with the funding rules described in section 404B(a) of the HEA.

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

Section 694.17: Priority

    Proposed Sec.  694.17 clarifies how the Department would implement 
the statute's requirement that priority in making awards be given to 
those States that (1) prior to enactment of HEOA have ``carried out 
successful GEAR UP programs'' and (2) have a ``prior, demonstrated 
commitment to early intervention leading to college access through 
collaboration and replication of successful strategies.'' While the 
Department could seek to implement this priority by having applicants 
address in their applications how they met both aspects, we believe 
that imposing this kind of data burden is unnecessary.
    We are proposing instead to rely, where possible, on reports that 
applicants previously submitted in implementing their prior GEAR UP 
projects. Thus, to implement this statutory requirement, the Department 
would grant ``priority preference points'' to State applicants, based, 
in part, on their prior submission of data, including outcome data, 
about their projects and other information available to the Department. 
At present, the Department is considering implementing the second 
element of the priority, which concerns a prior, demonstrated 
commitment to early intervention leading to college access, through 
review of the new GEAR UP application itself given that we do not know 
how else the Department would obtain the information it needs to 
determine the extent to which applicants would meet the second element 
of the priority. Moreover, should the Department determine that it 
needs applicants to provide more information in their applications that 
reflect this second element, the Department believes that the 
additional burden would be very small, and that the costs of this 
additional administrative burden would be far outweighed by the 
benefits from ensuring that the Department is able to give priority to 
the most deserving State applicants.

Sections 694.8 and 694.9: Waiver of Matching Requirements

    Consistent with section 404C(b) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, 
these proposed sections would specify the circumstances in which the 
Secretary would consider requests from applicants for a waiver of the 
GEAR UP's matching requirement based on significant economic hardship, 
and from grantees based on the unavailability of matching funds as 
described in section 404C(b)(2)(A) and (B) of the HEA. (Section 
404C(b)(2)(A)(i) of the HEA also authorizes a Partnership applicant to 
request that contributions to scholarship funds established under 
section 404E of the HEA be matched on a two-to-one basis, but our 
proposed Sec.  694.8(c) simply repeats this statutory provision.)
    The proposed regulations that would govern waiver requests by 
applicants (proposed Sec.  694.8) and by grantees (proposed Sec.  
694.9) would provide significant benefit to the public, and do so in 
numerous ways. First, they provide that the Secretary would entertain 
waiver requests of significant amounts from applicants and grantees--up 
to 75 percent for up to two years in the case of an applicant that 
demonstrates a significant economic hardship stemming from a specific, 
exceptional, or uncontrollable event, and up to 50 percent for up to 
two years in the case of an applicant with a pre-existing and on-going 
significant economic hardship that precludes them from meeting the 
matching requirement. Second, by providing clarifying examples of the 
kinds of economic situations and events that would give rise to 
approval of an applicant's or grantee's waiver requests, the proposed 
regulations would advise the public of the considerations the Secretary 
will examine upon receipt of a waiver request.
    Finally, for an applicant in an area that faces chronic economic 
challenges expected to affect the life of the GEAR UP project, proposed 
Sec.  694.8(b)(3) would permit the Secretary to grant tentative 
approval of the waiver for the entire project period, subject to the 
Partnership's submission of documentation every two years that confirms 
(1) the continued economic hardship, and (2) the Partnership's 
continuing and unsuccessful attempts to secure matching contributions. 
This latter proposal would both eliminate this applicant's need to 
prepare a non-Federal budget as part of its application, and upon 
initial approval of the waiver request, would provide a basis for 
predicting whether or not the Secretary would be expected to extend the 
waiver in future years.
    Thus, these regulatory provisions would provide a substantial 
benefit to grantees meeting the proposed criteria. For example, in 
2009, the average GEAR UP grant award made to a Partnership was 
approximately $1.1 million. Because, absent a waiver, GEAR UP grantees 
must match the amount of Federal expenditures, the average annual 
matching requirement for a Partnership was also $1.1 million in 2009. 
However, under proposed Sec. Sec.  694.8(b) and 694.9(a)(1), a 
Partnership applicant that can demonstrate an ongoing significant 
economic hardship that precludes it from meeting the matching 
requirement, or a Partnership grantee that can demonstrate that its 
matching contributions are no longer available and that it has 
exhausted all fund and sources of potential replacement contributions, 
could receive a waiver up to 50 percent, or on average up to $600,000 
per year. And, under proposed Sec. Sec.  694.8(a) and 694.9(a)(2), a 
Partnership that can demonstrate the unavailability of match due to an 
uncontrollable event such as a natural disaster that has had a 
devastating impact on members of the Partnership and the community in 
which they operate may receive a waiver of up to 75 percent--thus 
creating a benefit (i.e., a lessened private commitment) on average of 
up to $900,000 per year. Given the current national economic climate, 
such waiver requests seem likely. Moreover, for grantees that would not 
be able to continue operating their GEAR UP projects without these 
waivers, these proposed regulations would enable the participating 
students to continue to receive GEAR UP services, albeit at a reduced 
level given the smaller matching contributions.
    In considering the amount of match subject to possible waiver, the 
non-Federal negotiators opposed waivers of greater size. They stressed 
the importance of a vibrant and committed partnership in GEAR UP 
projects required partners to maintain a commitment of their own 
resources to help provide needed GEAR UP services. Moreover, the non-
Federal negotiators also noted that even under current economic 
conditions, partners committed to the GEAR UP projects should be able 
to secure substantial in-kind matching contributions.

[[Page 13864]]

Accordingly, they rejected options under which the Secretary might 
provide a waiver of the matching contributions for one or more years of 
the project because of economic conditions or a one-time exceptional or 
uncontrollable event waiver of up to 100 percent.
    We agree with the non-Federal negotiators on this issue. We believe 
that our proposal to allow the Secretary to grant waivers of the 
program's matching requirement of up to 50 and 75 percent strikes the 
right balance between (a) providing relief where circumstances beyond 
the control of a Partnership affect its ability to maintain its 
required match, and (b) the need for members of the Partnership to be 
truly committed to helping to provide the services that participating 
GEAR UP students need.

Sections 694.12 and 694.13: Scholarship Component

    Proposed Sec.  694.14(g) would make the current regulatory 
requirement that grantees participating in the scholarship component 
must grant continuation scholarships to each student who was granted an 
initial scholarship (and who remains eligible) inapplicable to grantees 
that receive their initial GEAR UP awards on or after August 14, 2008. 
Our proposal to remove this financial burden from these grantees 
recognizes that by requiring each eligible student to receive at least 
the Federal Pell Grant minimum award, section 404E of the HEA, as 
amended by the HEOA, will leave grantees with insufficient scholarship 
funds to meet the current regulatory requirement. While GEAR UP 
students may bear a corresponding cost by not having these continuation 
awards available to them, these costs--like our proposal to omit the 
requirement in current Sec.  694.10(d) from proposed Sec.  694.14--
results from the new statutory requirement that all eligible students 
receive at least the Pell Grant minimum award. Because the minimum 
scholarship amount is equal to the minimum Federal Pell Grant award, 
(which is defined in section 401(a)(1)(C) of the HEA as 10 percent of 
the maximum Pell Grant award), the benefit to grantees as a result of 
this proposed regulation would be equal to at least 10 percent of the 
appropriated maximum Pell grant award in a given year, multiplied by 
the number of individuals the grantee rejects for continuation awards. 
Importantly, because removing the continuation award requirement from 
these regulations would only apply to new awards, no GEAR UP students 
in newly funded projects would have the expectation of receiving a GEAR 
UP continuation scholarship.

Section 694.16: Return of Unused Scholarship Funds

    Section 404(e)(4)(A)(ii) of HEA, as amended by HEOA, requires 
grantees to return to the Secretary any scholarship funds that remain 
after they have first redistributed unused funds to eligible students. 
To enable the Department to monitor these scholarship accounts and 
ensure that Federal funds reserved for scholarships are expended as 
intended, the Department proposes to add Sec.  694.16(c), which would 
require grantees participating in the scholarship component of the 
program to provide annual information, as the Secretary may require, on 
the amount of Federal and non-Federal funds reserved for GEAR UP 
scholarships, and the disbursement of those scholarship funds to 
eligible GEAR UP students. These annual reports would need to be 
submitted until all of the funds are either disbursed or returned to 
the Secretary.
    This requirement imposes an administrative burden on the grantees. 
Grantees would be able to charge some of these administrative costs to 
their award of Federal GEAR UP grant funds because some of these annual 
reports would be prepared and submitted during the project period. 
Other annual reports would need to be prepared and submitted after the 
six- or seven-year GEAR UP project period has ended (by which time it 
is possible that the Partnerships have dissolved). In order to pay the 
costs of post-project reports, grantees would be able to (1) reserve 
additional amounts during each project period for the future costs of 
preparing and submitting post-project reports, or (2) authorize those 
administering the GEAR UP scholarship accounts to deduct such amount 
from the amount held in reserve for GEAR UP scholarships (assuming that 
all eligible students will still be able to receive a minimum Federal 
Pell Grant award).
    Because the Department has not yet established detailed reporting 
requirements for this regulatory provision, it is difficult to estimate 
the costs that grantees could charge to GEAR UP funds. The Department 
solicits information from the public regarding the potential costs 
associated with this provision and the content and format of the future 
collection of information. The Secretary believes that the costs 
introduced by this proposed regulatory provision are justified by the 
Department's need to have the necessary information to monitor the 
millions of dollars of Federal funds obligated to GEAR UP scholarship 
accounts.
    Accounting Statement: As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at 
http://www.Whithouse.gov/omb/Circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the following 
table, we have prepared an accounting statement showing the 
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of 
this proposed regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate 
of the Federal payments to be made to Institutions of Higher Education, 
public and private agencies and organizations, and secondary schools 
under these programs as a result of this proposed regulatory action. 
Expenditures are classified as transfers to those entities.

      Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Category                      Transfers (in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Monetized Transfers............  $1,218.
From Whom to Whom.....................  Federal Government to
                                         Institutions of Higher
                                         Education, public and private
                                         agencies and organizations, and
                                         secondary schools.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not 
adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. The proposed 
regulations would affect institutions of higher education, States, LEAs 
and nonprofit organizations. The U.S. Small Business Administration 
Size Standards define entities as ``small'' if they are for-profit or 
nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below $5,000,000 or if 
they are institutions controlled by small governmental jurisdictions, 
which are comprised of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, 
school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 
50,000.

HEP and CAMP

    The Secretary believes that the minor changes proposed to the HEP 
and CAMP regulations will not affect small entities.

Federal TRIO Programs

    The Secretary believes that the proposed regulations will not 
adversely impact any small entities receiving TRIO grants. The 
Department has determined that approximately 141 of the 2,887 TRIO 
grantees are defined as ``small entities'' under the U.S. Small 
Business Administration's size standards. Of these 141 entities, 133 
are

[[Page 13865]]

nonprofit organizations that receive less than $5,000,000 in total 
annual revenue, 7 are LEAs or Tribes with jurisdictions containing 
fewer than 50,000 people, and one is a secondary school. The Secretary 
believes that the proposed regulations will not negatively impact these 
small entities and, in fact, believes that small grantees will benefit 
from these regulations. The removal of the minimum students served 
requirement under the Talent Search program will benefit small 
entities, whose typically smaller budgets make it difficult to serve 
large numbers of students. In addition, the elimination of the 
requirement for grantees to obtain the Secretary's approval before 
purchasing computer equipment would particularly benefit small 
grantees, for which administrative costs are most burdensome. Most 
importantly, given that TRIO programs are competitive grant programs, 
all costs of participating are reimbursed by the grant.

GEAR UP

    The Secretary believes that the proposed regulations will not 
adversely impact any small entities receiving GEAR UP grants. The 42 
States receiving grants are not small entities because each State has a 
population exceeding 50,000. Thirty of the fiscal agents for the 154 
Partnership grants are local educational agencies; according to the 
U.S. Census Bureau, 6 of these LEAs have jurisdiction over an area with 
fewer than 50,000 residents, and as such, are defined as ``small 
entities'' under the U.S. Small Business Administration size standards. 
However, the Secretary believes that these small entities will not be 
adversely impacted by the proposed regulations. In accordance with 
statutory changes, the Secretary's proposed regulations regarding 
matching requirement waivers should particularly benefit small fiscal 
agents, which are more vulnerable to economic hardship than large 
fiscal agents, and, therefore, more likely to qualify for waivers. Most 
importantly, given that GEAR UP is a competitive grant program, all 
costs of participating are reimbursed by the grant.
    The Secretary invites comments from small institutions as to 
whether they believe the proposed regulations would have a significant 
impact on them and, if so, requests evidence to support that belief.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Proposed Sec. Sec.  642.21, 642.22, and 642.25 of the Training 
Program for Federal TRIO Programs (Training) regulations; Sec. Sec.  
643.21, 643.22, 643.24 and 643.32 of the Talent Search (TS) 
regulations; Sec. Sec.  644.21, 644.22, and 644.24 of the Educational 
Opportunity Centers (EOC) regulations; Sec. Sec.  645.31; 645.32, and 
645.35 of the Upward Bound (UB) regulations; Sec. Sec.  646.21, 646.22, 
646.24, and 646.33 of the Student Support Services (SSS) regulations; 
Sec. Sec.  647.21, 647.22 and 647.24 of the Ronald E. McNair 
Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program (McNair); and Sec. Sec.  694.7, 
694.8, 694.9, 694.14, 694.19, and 694.20 of the GEAR UP regulations 
contain information collection requirements. Under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Education 
will submit a copy of these sections to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for its review.

Parts 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647--Federal TRIO Programs

    Recent grant application packages for the Training, SSS, TS, EOC, 
UB, and McNair programs have been or will be discontinued; new 
application packages for these programs will be developed prior to 
their next competitions, and will reflect any regulatory changes 
included in the final regulations that will be published in 2010. For 
each new application, a separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be 
published to solicit comment on the new application several months 
prior to the next scheduled competition for the program.
    Likewise, any regulatory changes applicable to the annual 
performance reports (APRs) will affect grants awarded under 
competitions conducted after the enactment of the HEOA. The APRs for 
the first year of a new grant will be due approximately 15 months after 
the beginning of the new grant period. Until new grants are awarded, 
the Department will continue to use the existing APR for the program. A 
new APR for each program that addresses the new HEOA requirements will 
be developed for the new grant period. A separate 60-day Federal 
Register notice followed by a 30-day Federal Register notice will be 
published to solicit public comment on the new APR form for each 
program prior to its usage.

Sections 642.21 and 642.25 (Training)--Selection Criteria the Secretary 
Uses To Evaluate an Application for a New Grant and the Second Review 
Process for Unsuccessful Applicants

    The proposed regulations for the Training Program would amend the 
selection criteria the Secretary would use to evaluate an application 
for a new grant to conform to current practice. Further, section 
402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, has added 
requirements for a formal second review process for unsuccessful 
applicants. Therefore, the proposed regulations would add a new section 
that establishes processes and procedures for a second review of 
unsuccessful applications. The new application would include the 
changes to the selection criteria and describe the processes and 
procedures for the second review of unsuccessful applications.
    Specifically, we propose to drop the Need criterion from the 
selection criteria for the Training Program (current Sec.  642.31(f)) 
to conform to current practice. An applicant for a Training grant would 
need to address one of the absolute priorities established in the 
Federal Register notice inviting applications for the competition. With 
the absolute priorities, the Department would establish the ``need'' 
for the proposed training; thus, it would be redundant to require an 
applicant to provide data in the application to support the need for 
the training project. Therefore, the Need selection criterion is no 
longer necessary. The proposed change would reduce the amount of 
information an applicant must include in its application.
    In addition, the application will describe the procedures an 
unsuccessful applicant must follow to request a second review of its 
application. Under the proposed regulations, only those applicants in 
the proposed ``funding band'' would be eligible to request a second 
review. As described in the proposed regulations, the Department would 
notify an unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its 
application and the ``funding band'' for the second review and provide 
copies of the peer reviewers' evaluations of the application and the 
applicant's prior experience (PE) scores, if applicable. The applicant 
would be given 15 calendar days after receiving notification that its 
application was not funded in which to submit a written request for a 
second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided 
in the Secretary's written notification. To be considered for a second 
review, an applicant would need to provide evidence demonstrating that 
the Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made a 
technical, administrative or scoring error in the processing or review 
of the application. The applicant, however, would not be able to submit 
any additional data or information that was not included in its 
original application.
    The proposed regulatory change to the selection criteria would 
reduce the amount of information an applicant must include in its 
application,

[[Page 13866]]

resulting in an estimated burden reduction of 240 hours. In addition, 
we estimate that approximately ten percent of the applications received 
under each competition for Training grants will score within the 
``funding band.'' For each applicant in the ``funding band'' that 
requests a second review, we estimate an additional burden of two hours 
for a burden increase of 12 hours, which includes the time an applicant 
would need to review the peer reviewers' evaluations and, if 
applicable, the PE assessment and submit a written request for a second 
review.
    Taken together, the proposed increase and decrease in burden would 
result in a net total burden reduction of 228 hours, reflected in OMB 
Control Number 1840-NEW1.

Sections 643.21 and 643.25 (TS)--Selection Criteria the Secretary Uses 
To Evaluate an Application for a New Grant and the Second Review 
Process for Unsuccessful Applicants

    The proposed regulations would amend the selection criteria the 
Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a new TS grant to address 
statutory changes resulting from the HEOA. Further, section 
402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, has added 
requirements for a formal second review process for unsuccessful 
applicants. Therefore, the proposed regulations would add a new section 
that establishes processes and procedures for a second review of 
unsuccessful applications. The new application would include the 
changes to the selection criteria and the processes and procedures for 
the second review of unsuccessful applications.
    The HEOA has made significant changes to the purpose and goals of 
the TS program as reflected in changes to applicant eligibility, the 
list of required and permissible services, and the outcome criteria. To 
better align the selection criteria with these statutory changes, we 
propose to revise the following selection criteria: Sec. Sec.  
643.21(a) (Need for the project); 643.21(b) (Objectives); 643.21(c) 
(Plan of operation); and 643.21(d) (Applicant and community support). 
The revised selection criteria would replace the existing criteria in 
Sec. Sec.  643.21(a) 643.21(b), 643.21(c), and 643.21(d).
    In addition, the application would describe the procedures an 
unsuccessful applicant must follow to request a second review of its 
application. Under the proposed regulations, only those applicants in 
the proposed ``funding band'' would be eligible to request a second 
review. As described in the proposed regulations, the Department would 
notify an unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its 
application and the ``funding band'' for the second review and provide 
copies of the peer reviewers' evaluations of the application and the 
applicant's prior experience (PE) scores, if applicable. The applicant 
would be given 15 calendar days after receiving notification that its 
application was not funded in which to submit a written request for a 
second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided 
in the Secretary's written notification. To be considered for a second 
review, an applicant would need to provide evidence demonstrating that 
the Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made a 
technical, administrative or scoring error in the processing or review 
of the application. The applicant, however, would not be able to submit 
any additional data or information that was not included in its 
original application.
    The Department does not expect that proposed changes to the 
selection criteria to increase an applicant's paperwork burden. 
However, we estimate that approximately two percent of the applications 
received under each competition for TS grants will score within the 
``funding band''. For each applicant in the ``funding band'' that 
requests a second review, we estimate an additional burden of two 
hours, which includes the time an applicant would need to review the 
peer reviewers' evaluations and, if applicable, the PE assessment and 
submit a written request for a second review. This would result in a 
total burden increase of 60 hours for the revised application, which 
would be reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW2. A separate 
30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public 
comment on the new application form to be used for the next competition 
for new TS grants currently scheduled for fall 2010.

Sections 644.21 and 644.24 (EOC)--Selection Criteria the Secretary Uses 
To Evaluate an Application for a New Grant and the Second Review 
Process for Unsuccessful Applicants

    The proposed regulations for the EOC Program amend the selection 
criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a new grant 
to address statutory changes resulting from the HEOA. Further, section 
402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, has added 
requirements for a formal second review process for unsuccessful 
applicants. Therefore, the proposed regulations would establish 
processes and procedures for a second review of unsuccessful 
applications. The new application would include the changes to the 
selection criteria and describe the processes and procedures for the 
second review of unsuccessful applications.
    Revisions in the selection criteria are needed to address the 
statutory changes resulting from the HEOA. The HEOA has made changes to 
applicant eligibility and the outcome criteria. To better align the 
selection criteria with these statutory changes, we propose to revise 
the following selection criteria: Sec. Sec.  644.21(b) (Objectives) and 
644.21(d)(2) (Applicant and community support). The revised selection 
criteria would replace existing criteria.
    In addition, the application would describe the procedures an 
unsuccessful applicant would need to follow to request a second review 
of its application. Under the proposed regulations, only those 
applicants in the proposed ``funding band'' would be eligible to 
request a second review. As described in the proposed regulations, the 
Department would notify an unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the 
status of its application and the ``funding band'' for the second 
review and provide copies of the peer reviewers' evaluations of the 
application and the applicant's prior experience (PE) scores, if 
applicable. The applicant would be given 15 calendar days after 
receiving notification that its application was not funded in which to 
submit a written request for a second review in accordance with the 
instructions and due date provided in the Secretary's written 
notification. To be considered for a second review, an applicant would 
need to provide evidence demonstrating that the Department, an agent of 
the Department, or a peer reviewer made a technical, administrative or 
scoring error in the processing or review of the application. The 
applicant, however, would not be able to submit any additional data or 
information that was not included in its original application.
    The Department does not expect that these proposed changes to the 
selection criteria would increase an applicant's paperwork burden. 
However, we estimate that approximately two percent of the applications 
received under each competition for EOC grants will score within the 
``funding band.'' For each applicant in the ``funding band'' that 
requests a second review, we estimate an additional burden of two 
hours, which includes the time an applicant would need to review the 
peer reviewers' evaluations and, if applicable, the PE assessment and 
submit a written request for a second

[[Page 13867]]

review. This will result in a total burden increase of 20 hours for the 
revised application, which will be reflected in a new OMB Control 
Number 1840-NEW3. A separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be 
published to solicit public comment on the new application form to be 
used for the next competition for new EOC grants currently scheduled 
for fall 2010.

Sections 645.31 and 642.35 (UB)--Selection Criteria the Secretary Uses 
To Evaluate an Application for a New Grant and the Second Review 
Process for Unsuccessful Applicants

    The proposed UB regulations would amend the selection criteria the 
Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a new grant to address 
statutory changes resulting from the HEOA. Further, section 
402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, has added 
requirements for a formal second review process for unsuccessful 
applicants. Therefore, the proposed regulations would establish 
processes and procedures for a second review of unsuccessful 
applications. The new application would include the changes to the 
selection criteria and describe the processes and procedures for the 
second review of unsuccessful applications.
    The HEOA has made changes to applicant eligibility and the outcome 
criteria. To better align the selection criteria with these statutory 
changes, we propose to revise the following selection criteria: 
Sec. Sec.  645.31(b) (Objectives) and 645.31(d)(2) (Applicant and 
community support). The revised selection criteria would replace 
existing criteria in Sec. Sec.  645.31(b) and 645.31(d)(2).
    In addition, the application would describe the procedures an 
unsuccessful applicant must follow to request a second review of its 
application. Under the proposed regulations, only those applicants in 
the proposed ``funding band'' would be eligible to request a second 
review. As described in the proposed regulations, the Department would 
notify an unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its 
application and the ``funding band'' for the second review and provide 
copies of the peer reviewers' evaluations of the application and the 
applicant's prior experience (PE) scores, if applicable. The applicant 
would be given 15 calendar days after receiving notification that its 
application was not funded in which to submit a written request for a 
second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided 
in the Secretary's written notification. To be considered for a second 
review, an applicant would need to provide evidence demonstrating that 
the Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made a 
technical, administrative or scoring error in the processing or review 
of the application. The applicant, however, would not be permitted to 
submit any additional data or information that was not included in its 
original application.
    The Department does not expect these proposed changes to the 
selection criteria will increase an applicant's paperwork burden. 
However, we estimate that approximately two percent of the applications 
received under each competition for UB grants will score within the 
``funding band.'' For each applicant in the ``funding band'' that 
requests a second review, we estimate an additional burden of two 
hours, which includes the time an applicant would need to review the 
peer reviewers' evaluations and, if applicable, the PE assessment and 
submit a written request for a second review. This would result in a 
total burden increase of 80 hours for the revised application, which 
would be reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW4. A separate 
30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public 
comment on the new application form to be used for the next competition 
for new UB grants currently scheduled for either fall 2010 or fall 
2011.

Sections 646.11; 646.21 and 646.25 (SSS)--The Assurances and Other 
Information an Applicant Must Include in an Application, the Selection 
Criteria the Secretary Uses To Evaluate an Application for a New Grant 
and the Second Review Process for Unsuccessful Applicants

    The proposed SSS regulations amend the selection criteria the 
Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a new grant to address 
statutory changes resulting from the HEOA and add the statutory 
requirement that an applicant include in its application a description 
of its efforts in providing participants with sufficient financial 
assistance. Further, section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by 
the HEOA, has added requirements for a formal second review process for 
unsuccessful applicants. Therefore, the proposed regulations add a new 
section that establishes processes and procedures for a second review 
of unsuccessful applications. The new application will include the 
changes to the selection criteria and describe the processes and 
procedures for the second review of unsuccessful applications.
    The HEOA made changes to the outcome criteria. To better align the 
selection criteria with these statutory changes and current practice, 
we propose to revise Sec.  646.21(b) (Objectives). The revised 
selection criteria will replace existing criteria. Further, the revised 
Sec.  646.11 will include the requirement that the applicant discuss in 
its application its efforts to provide participants sufficient 
financial assistance.
    In addition, the application will describe the procedures an 
unsuccessful applicant must follow to request a second review of its 
application. Under the proposed regulations, only those applicants in 
the proposed ``funding band'' are eligible to request a second review. 
As described in the proposed regulations, the Department will notify an 
unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its application 
and the ``funding band'' for the second review and provide copies of 
the peer reviewers' evaluations of the application and the applicant's 
prior experience (PE) scores, if applicable. The applicant will be 
given 15 calendar days after receiving notification that its 
application was not funded in which to submit a written request for a 
second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided 
in the Secretary's written notification. To be considered for a second 
review, an applicant must provide evidence demonstrating that the 
Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made a 
technical, administrative, or scoring error in the processing or review 
of the application. The applicant, however, cannot submit any 
additional data or information that was not included in its original 
application.
    The Department does not expect the proposed changes to the 
selection criteria to increase an applicant's paperwork burden. 
However, we estimate that approximately two percent of the applications 
received under each competition for SSS grants will score within the 
``funding band'' and be eligible for a second review. For each 
applicant in the ``funding band'' that requests a second review, we 
estimate an additional burden of two hours, which includes the time an 
applicant would need to review the peer reviewers' evaluations and, if 
applicable, the PE assessment and submit a written request for a second 
review. This would result in a total burden increase of 66 hours for 
the revised application, which would be reflected in a new OMB Control 
Number 1840-NEW5. A separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be 
published to solicit public comment on the new application form to be 
used for the next

[[Page 13868]]

competition for new SSS grants currently scheduled for fall 2013.

Sections 647.21 and 647.25 (McNair)--Selection Criteria the Secretary 
Uses To Evaluate an Application for a New Grant and the Second Review 
Process for Unsuccessful Applicants

    The proposed McNair regulations would amend the selection criteria 
the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a new grant to 
address statutory changes resulting from the HEOA. Further, section 
402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, has added 
requirements for a formal second review process for unsuccessful 
applicants. Therefore, the proposed regulations would establish 
processes and procedures for a second review of unsuccessful 
applications. The new application would describe the changes to the 
selection criteria and the processes and procedures for the second 
review of unsuccessful applications.
    The HEOA has made changes to the outcome criteria. To better align 
the selection criteria with these statutory changes and current 
practice, we propose to revise Sec.  647.21(b) (Objectives). The 
revised selection criteria would replace the current criteria in Sec.  
647.21(b).
    In addition, the application will describe the procedures an 
unsuccessful applicant must follow to request a second review of its 
application. Under the proposed regulations, only those applicants in 
the proposed ``funding band'' would be eligible to request a second 
review. As described in the proposed regulations, the Department would 
notify an unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of its 
application and the ``funding band'' for the second review and provide 
copies of the peer reviewers' evaluations of the application and the 
applicant's prior experience (PE) scores, if applicable. The applicant 
would be given 15 calendar days after receiving notification that its 
application was not funded in which to submit a written request for a 
second review in accordance with the instructions and due date provided 
in the Secretary's written notification. To be considered for a second 
review, an applicant would need to provide evidence demonstrating that 
the Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made a 
technical, administrative or scoring error in the processing or review 
of the application. The applicant, however, would not be permitted to 
submit any additional data or information that was not included in its 
original application.
    The Department does not expect proposed changes to the selection 
criteria to increase an applicant's paperwork burden. However, we 
estimate that approximately two percent of the applications received 
under each competition for McNair grants will score within the 
``funding band.'' For each applicant in the ``funding band'' that 
requests a second review, we estimate an additional burden of two 
hours, which includes the time an applicant would need to review the 
peer reviewers' evaluations and, if applicable, the PE assessment and 
submit a written request for a second review. This would result in a 
total burden increase of 16 hours for the revised application, which 
would be reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW6. A separate 
30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public 
comment on the new application form for the next competition for new 
McNair grants currently scheduled for either fall 2010 or fall 2011.

Section 642.22 (Training)--How Does the Secretary Evaluate Prior 
Experience?

    The HEA, as amended, does not establish specific outcome criteria 
for the Training program; the program outcome criteria for evaluating a 
grantee's prior experience (PE) are established in current regulations.
    Under the proposed regulations, we would award PE points for each 
criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable 
project objectives. This determination would be based on the 
information the grantee submits in its APR. The proposed regulations 
amend the prior experience criteria the Secretary uses to award PE 
points as follows.
    For Training (Newly redesignated Sec.  642.20 and 642.22), we 
propose to clarify the PE criteria and to update the regulations to 
reflect the maximum number of PE points a Training program grantee may 
earn. The maximum number of points would change from 8 points to 15 
points.
    The burden hour estimate associated with this APR is reported under 
OMB Control Number 1894-0003, the Department's generic performance 
report Standard 524B form. The Department does not expect these 
proposed editorial changes to increase burden.

Section 643.22 (TS)--How Does the Secretary Evaluate Prior Experience? 
and Section 643.32 Includes a New Recordkeeping Requirement

    Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 
HEOA, provides specific outcome criteria to be used to determine an 
entity's prior experience (PE) of high quality service delivery and for 
the purpose of reporting annually to the Congress on the performance of 
the TS program. Prior to the enactment of the HEOA, the PE criteria 
were established in regulations.
    Under the proposed regulations, we would award PE points for each 
criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable 
project objectives. This determination would be based on the 
information the grantee submits in its APR. The proposed regulations 
would amend the criteria the Secretary uses to award PE points.
    The proposed regulations would amend the PE criteria to address 
statutory changes resulting from the HEOA. The new statutory outcome 
and PE criteria for TS require grantees to report on: (1) Secondary 
school persistence of participants; (2) secondary school graduation of 
participants with regular secondary school diploma; (3) secondary 
school graduation of participants in a rigorous secondary school 
program of study; (4) the postsecondary enrollment of participants; and 
(5) the postsecondary completion of participants.
    We also propose to amend the recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  
643.32 to require grantees to maintain a list of courses taken by 
participants receiving support to complete a rigorous secondary school 
program of study.
    Currently one APR form is used for both the TS and EOC programs. 
Because of the proposed changes to TS, the Department plans to develop 
a new APR for TS. The Department expects the proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to increase the reporting burden for this 
new data collection to 15 hours for each grantee. This would result in 
a total burden increase of 7,050 hours for the new APR, which would be 
reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW7. A separate 60-day 
Federal Register notice followed by a 30-day Federal Register notice 
will be published to solicit public comment on the new APR form several 
months prior to its first use in fall 2012.

Section 644.22 (EOC)--How Does the Secretary Evaluate Prior Experience?

    Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 
HEOA, provides specific outcome criteria to be used to determine an 
entity's prior experience (PE) of high quality service delivery and for 
the purpose of reporting annually to the Congress on the performance of 
the EOC

[[Page 13869]]

program. Prior to the HEOA, the PE criteria were established in 
regulations.
    Under the proposed regulations, we would award PE points for each 
criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable 
project objectives. This determination would be based on the 
information the grantee submits in its APR. The proposed regulations 
would amend the criteria the Secretary uses to award PE points.
    The new statutory PE criteria are similar to the current regulatory 
PE criteria (see current Sec.  644.22); therefore, the Department does 
not expect the proposed changes to increase burden on a EOC grantee. 
However, when a new TS APR is developed, the current TS/EOC form would 
not be used by TS grantees; therefore, we expect a total burden 
decrease for this data collection of 2,820 hours, which would be 
reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW8.
    A separate 60-day Federal Register notice followed by a 30-day 
Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public comment on 
the new APR form several months prior to its first use in fall 2012.

Section 645.32 (UB)--How Does the Secretary Evaluate Prior Experience?

    Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 
HEOA, provides specific outcome criteria to be used to determine an 
entity's prior experience (PE) of high quality service delivery and for 
the purpose of reporting annually to the Congress on the performance of 
the UB program. Prior to the enactment of the HEOA, the PE criteria 
were established in regulations.
    Under the proposed regulations, we would award PE points for each 
criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable 
project objectives. This determination would be based on the 
information the grantee submits in its APR. The proposed regulations 
would amend the criteria the Secretary uses to award PE points.
    Revisions in the PE criteria are needed to address statutory 
changes resulting from the HEOA. The new statutory outcome PE criteria 
for UB requires grantees to report on: (1) The academic performance of 
participants; (2) secondary school retention and graduation of 
participants; (3) completion by participants of a rigorous secondary 
school program of study; (4) the postsecondary enrollment of 
participants; and (5) the postsecondary completion of participants.
    The Department expects the new requirements that a grantee report 
on the completion of a rigorous secondary school program of study and 
postsecondary completion of participants would increase the reporting 
burden for this data collection by six hours for each grantee. This 
would result in a total burden increase of 6,858 hours for the revised 
APR, which would be reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW9.
    A separate 60-day Federal Register notice followed by a 30-day 
Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public comment on 
the new APR form several months prior to its first use in either fall 
2012 or fall 2013.

Section 646.22 (SSS)--How Does the Secretary Evaluate Prior Experience? 
and New Section 646.33 Adds the Statutory Matching Requirements for 
Grantees That Use Federal SSS Funds for Grant Aid

    Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 
HEOA, provides specific outcome criteria to be used to determine an 
entity's prior experience of high quality service delivery and for the 
purpose of reporting annually to Congress on the performance of the SSS 
program. Prior to the HEOA, the PE criteria were established in 
regulations.
    Under the proposed regulations, we would award PE points for each 
criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable 
project objectives. This determination would be based on the 
information the grantee submits in its APR. The proposed regulations 
would amend the criteria the Secretary uses to award PE points.
    Revisions in the PE criteria are needed to address statutory 
changes resulting from the HEOA. The statutory outcome PE criteria for 
the SSS program requires grantees to report on baccalaureate degree 
competition for participants at four-year institutions and certificate 
and associate degree completion and transfers to four-year institutions 
for participants at two-year institutions. The Department expects that 
these requirements for tracking the academic progress of SSS 
participants through degree completion to increase the reporting burden 
by six hours for each grantee.
    We also propose to add new Sec.  646.33 to incorporate the 
statutory provisions that permit a grantee to use Federal grant funds 
to provide grant aid to students. Many grantees that use program funds 
for grant aid must provide a non-Federal match, in cash, of not less 
than 33 percent of the Federal funds used for grant aid. A grant 
recipient that is an institution of higher education eligible to 
receive funds under part A or B of title III or title V of the HEA, as 
amended, is not required to match the Federal funds used for grant aid. 
For those grantees that are required to provide matching funds for 
grant aid (estimated at 50 percent of SSS grantees), we estimate that 
the proposed regulations will increase the burden by two hours per 
grantee. The combined increase would result in a total burden increase 
of 6,720 hours for the revised APR, which would be reflected in a new 
OMB Control Number 1840-NEW10. A separate 60-day Federal Register 
notice followed by a 30-day Federal Register notice will be published 
to solicit public comment on the new APR form several months prior to 
its first use in fall 2011.

Section 647.22 (McNair)--How Does the Secretary Evaluate Prior 
Experience?

    Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 
HEOA, provides specific outcome criteria for the McNair Program to be 
used to determine an entity's prior experience of high quality service 
delivery and for the purpose of reporting annually to Congress on the 
performance of the McNair program. Prior to the HEOA, the PE criteria 
were established in regulations.
    Under the proposed regulations, we would award PE points for each 
criterion by determining whether the grantee met or exceeded applicable 
project objectives. This determination would be based on the 
information the grantee submits in its APR. The proposed regulations 
would amend the criteria the Secretary uses to award PE points.
    The Department expects the new statutory requirements that include 
long-term tracking of the academic progress of McNair participants 
through completion of the doctoral degree will increase the reporting 
burden for this data collection by 4 hours per grantee. This will 
result in a total burden increase of 760 hours for the revised APR, 
which will be reflected in a new OMB Control Number 1840-NEW11. A 
separate 60-day Federal Register notice followed by a 30-day Federal 
Register notice will be published to solicit public comment on the new 
APR form several months prior to its first use in either fall 2012 or 
2013.

[[Page 13870]]

Part 694--GEAR UP

Sections 694.7, 694.8 and 694.9--Matching Requirements for GEAR UP 
Grants

    The proposed regulations provide that an applicant for GEAR UP 
funding must state in its application the percentage of the cost of the 
GEAR UP project that the applicant will provide from non-Federal funds. 
The proposed regulations also provide that the Secretary may waive a 
portion of the matching requirement in response to a grantee's written 
request for a waiver of the match. The proposed regulations further 
provide the conditions that must be met for the Secretary to approve a 
request to waive a portion of the matching requirement and that if the 
Secretary grants a tentative waiver to a new grantee for the full 
project period because of a pre-existing or ongoing economic hardship, 
the recipient will need to submit documentation every two years to 
demonstrate that conditions have not changed.
    We estimate that the proposed changes would increase burden by 12.5 
hours for each GEAR UP applicant in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW12, for 
a total burden increase of 6,250 hours, based on 500 applicants. A 
separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit 
public comment on the revised application form prior to its usage, 
currently estimated to be fall 2010.
    We estimate that the proposed changes would decrease burden by 500 
hours for each GEAR UP grantee in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW13, 
resulting in a total burden decrease of 7,860 hours, and likewise in 
OMB Control Number 1840-NEW14, resulting in a total burden decrease of 
5,625. A separate 60-day Federal Register notice followed by a 30-day 
Federal Register notice will be published to solicit public comment on 
the revised APR and FPR forms prior to their usage, currently estimated 
to be spring 2011 or spring 2012. If granted a waiver of the matching 
requirement, GEAR UP grantees will spend significantly less time 
collecting and documenting matching funds.

Section 694.16(c)--Scholarship Reporting Requirements

    The proposed regulations require grantees whose initial GEAR UP 
grant awards were made on or after August 14, 2008 and grantees whose 
initial GEAR UP grant awards were made prior to August 14, 2008, but 
who, pursuant to 694.12(b)(2), elect make scholarships pursuant to the 
HEOA requirements in to furnish information as the Secretary may 
require on the amount of any Federal and non-Federal funds reserved and 
held for GEAR UP scholarships and the disbursement of these scholarship 
funds. Reporting would be required until these funds are fully expended 
or, if Federal funds, returned to the Secretary.
    We estimate that these proposed changes would increase burden by 
400 hours for each GEAR UP grantee in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW13, 
resulting in a total burden increase of 8,760, and by 800 hours for 
each grantee in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW14, resulting in a total 
burden increase of 6,925. A separate 60-day Federal Register notice 
followed by a 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to 
solicit public comment on the revised APR and FPR forms prior to their 
usage, currently estimated to be spring 2011 or spring 2012.

Section 694.19--Priorities for GEAR UP Grants

    The proposed regulations would provide that the Secretary awards 
competitive preference priority points to an eligible applicant for a 
State grant that has carried out a successful State GEAR UP grant prior 
to August 14, 2008 and has a prior, demonstrated commitment to early 
intervention leading to college access through collaboration and 
replication of successful strategies.
    Applicants would respond to these priorities as part of their 
applications in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW12, which would increase 
total burden by 6,250 hours. A separate 30-day Federal Register notice 
will be published to solicit public comment on the revised application 
form prior to its usage, currently estimated to be fall 2010.

Section 694.20--When May a GEAR UP Grantee Provide Services to Students 
Attending an Institution of Higher Education?

    Under the proposed regulations, GEAR UP applicants would be 
permitted to request in their applications a seventh year of funding so 
that the State or Partnership may continue to provide services to 
students through their first year of attendance at an institution of 
higher education.
    We estimate that the proposed changes would increase burden by 300 
hours in OMB Control Number 1840-NEW12 for each GEAR UP applicant for a 
total burden increase of 150,000 hours. A separate 30-day Federal 
Register notice will be published to solicit public comment on the 
revised application form prior to its usage, currently estimated to be 
fall 2010.
    Consistent with this discussion, the following chart describes the 
sections of the proposed regulations involving information collections, 
the information being collected, and the collections that the 
Department will submit to OMB for approval and public comment under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

[[Page 13871]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Regulation section                       Information section               Collection OMB Control No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 642.21 and 642.25 (Training)  The proposed regulations would amend the    1840-NEW1 (Training) This is
                                        selection criteria the Secretary uses to    a new collection. The
                                        evaluate an application for a Training      Department has submitted the
                                        grant. The proposed regulations also        new application form for
                                        would add a new section that establishes    public comment to be used
                                        processes and procedures for a review of    for the next competition for
                                        unsuccessful applications.                  new Training grants
                                                                                    scheduled for spring/summer
                                                                                    2010.
                                                                                   The proposed regulations
                                                                                    would affect applicant
                                                                                    burden in two ways. First,
                                                                                    the proposed elimination of
                                                                                    the Need selection criterion
                                                                                    would reduce the amount of
                                                                                    information an applicant
                                                                                    must include in its
                                                                                    application, resulting in an
                                                                                    estimated burden reduction
                                                                                    of 240 hours.
                                                                                   Additionally, the proposed
                                                                                    regulatory processes and
                                                                                    procedures for a second
                                                                                    review of unsuccessful
                                                                                    applications would lead to
                                                                                    an estimated burden increase
                                                                                    of 12 hours (or, an
                                                                                    estimated two burden hour
                                                                                    increase for each of the
                                                                                    estimated six applicants
                                                                                    that will fall within an
                                                                                    estimated 10 percent funding
                                                                                    band under the second review
                                                                                    process).
                                                                                   In total, there would be an
                                                                                    estimated decrease in burden
                                                                                    of 228 hours.
Sections 643.21 and 643.24 (TS)......  The proposed regulations would amend the    1840-NEW2 (TS) This would be
                                        selection criteria the Secretary uses to    a new collection. A separate
                                        evaluate an application for a TS grant.     30-day Federal Register
                                        The proposed regulations also would add a   notice will be published to
                                        new section that establishes processes      solicit comments on this
                                        and procedures for a review of              form prior to the next
                                        unsuccessful applications.                  competition for new grants
                                                                                    scheduled for fall 2010.
                                                                                   The Department does not
                                                                                    expect that proposed
                                                                                    amendments to the selection
                                                                                    criteria would change an
                                                                                    applicant's paperwork
                                                                                    burden. The proposed
                                                                                    regulatory processes and
                                                                                    procedures for a second
                                                                                    review of unsuccessful
                                                                                    applications would lead to
                                                                                    an estimated burden increase
                                                                                    of 60 hours (or, an
                                                                                    estimated two burden hour
                                                                                    increase for each of the
                                                                                    estimated 30 applicants that
                                                                                    will fall within an
                                                                                    estimated two percent
                                                                                    funding band under the
                                                                                    second review process).
                                                                                   In total, there would be an
                                                                                    estimated burden increase of
                                                                                    60 hours.
Sections 644.21 and 644.24 (EOC).....  The proposed regulations would amend the    1840-NEW3 (EOC) This would be
                                        selection criteria the Secretary uses to    a new collection. A separate
                                        evaluate an application for an EOC grant.   30-day Federal Register
                                        The proposed regulations also would add a   notice will be published to
                                        new section that establishes processes      solicit comments on this
                                        and procedures for a review of              form prior to the next
                                        unsuccessful applications.                  competition for new grants
                                                                                    scheduled for fall 2010.
                                                                                   The Department does not
                                                                                    expect that proposed
                                                                                    amendments to the selection
                                                                                    criteria would change an
                                                                                    applicant's paperwork
                                                                                    burden. The proposed
                                                                                    regulatory processes and
                                                                                    procedures for a second
                                                                                    review of unsuccessful
                                                                                    applications would lead to
                                                                                    an estimated burden increase
                                                                                    of 20 hours (or, an
                                                                                    estimated two burden hour
                                                                                    increase for each of the
                                                                                    estimated 10 applicants that
                                                                                    will fall within an
                                                                                    estimated two percent
                                                                                    funding band under the
                                                                                    second review process).
                                                                                   In total, there would be an
                                                                                    estimated burden increase of
                                                                                    20 hours.
Sections 645.31 and 645.35 (UB)......  The proposed regulations would amend the    1840-NEW4 (UB) This would be
                                        selection criteria the Secretary uses to    a new collection. A separate
                                        evaluate an application for a UB grant.     30-day Federal Register
                                       The proposed regulations also would add a    notice will be published to
                                        new section that establishes processes      solicit comments on this
                                        and procedures for a review of              form prior to the next
                                        unsuccessful applications.                  competition for new grants
                                                                                    scheduled for fall 2010 or
                                                                                    2011.
                                                                                   The Department does not
                                                                                    expect that proposed
                                                                                    amendments to the selection
                                                                                    criteria would change an
                                                                                    applicant's paperwork
                                                                                    burden. The proposed
                                                                                    regulatory processes and
                                                                                    procedures for a second
                                                                                    review of unsuccessful
                                                                                    applications would lead to
                                                                                    an estimated burden increase
                                                                                    of 80 hours (or, an
                                                                                    estimated two burden hour
                                                                                    increase for each of the
                                                                                    estimated 40 applicants that
                                                                                    will fall within an
                                                                                    estimated two percent
                                                                                    funding band under the
                                                                                    second review process).
                                                                                   In total, there would be an
                                                                                    estimated burden increase of
                                                                                    80 hours.

[[Page 13872]]

 
Sections 646.11; 646.21 and 646.24     The proposed regulations would amend the    1840-NEW5 (SSS) This would be
 (SSS).                                 selection criteria the Secretary uses to    a new collection. A separate
                                        evaluate an application for a SSS grant     30-day Federal Register
                                        and amend the assurance and other           notice will be published to
                                        information an applicant must include in    solicit comments on this
                                        its application.                            form prior to the next
                                       The proposed regulations also would add a    competition for new grants
                                        new section that establishes processes      scheduled for fall 2013.
                                        and procedures for a review of             The Department does not
                                        unsuccessful applications.                  expect that proposed
                                                                                    amendments to the selection
                                                                                    criteria or the assurance
                                                                                    and other information an
                                                                                    applicant must include in
                                                                                    its application would change
                                                                                    an applicant's paperwork
                                                                                    burden. The proposed
                                                                                    regulatory processes and
                                                                                    procedures for a second
                                                                                    review of unsuccessful
                                                                                    applications would lead to
                                                                                    an estimated burden increase
                                                                                    of 66 hours (or, an
                                                                                    estimated two burden hour
                                                                                    increase for each of the
                                                                                    estimated 33 applicants that
                                                                                    will fall within an
                                                                                    estimated two percent
                                                                                    funding band under the
                                                                                    second review process).
                                                                                   In total, there would be an
                                                                                    estimated burden increase of
                                                                                    66 hours.
Sections 647.21 and 647.24 (McNair)..  The proposed regulations would amend the    1840-NEW6 (McNair) This would
                                        selection criteria the Secretary uses to    be a new collection. A
                                        evaluate an application for a McNair        separate 30-day Federal
                                        grant.                                      Register notice will be
                                       The proposed regulations also would add a    published to solicit
                                        new section that establishes processes      comments on this form prior
                                        and procedures for a review of              to the next competition for
                                        unsuccessful applications.                  new grants scheduled for
                                                                                    fall 2010 or 2011.
                                                                                   The Department does not
                                                                                    expect that proposed
                                                                                    amendments to the selection
                                                                                    criteria would change an
                                                                                    applicant's paperwork
                                                                                    burden. The proposed
                                                                                    regulatory processes and
                                                                                    procedures for a second
                                                                                    review of unsuccessful
                                                                                    applications would lead to
                                                                                    an estimated burden increase
                                                                                    of 16 hours (or, an
                                                                                    estimated two burden hour
                                                                                    increase for each of the
                                                                                    estimated eight applicants
                                                                                    that will fall within an
                                                                                    estimated two percent
                                                                                    funding band under the
                                                                                    second review process).
                                                                                   In total, there would be an
                                                                                    estimated burden increase of
                                                                                    16 hours.
Section 642.22 (Training)............  The proposed regulations would amend the    1894-0003 (Training) The
                                        prior experience (PE) criteria the          Department would continue to
                                        Secretary uses to award PE points. Under    use the Department's generic
                                        the proposed regulations, we would award    performance report for the
                                        PE points for each criterion by             Training program. Proposed
                                        determining whether the grantee met or      changes would be editorial
                                        exceeded applicable project objectives.     in nature.
                                        This determination would be based on the   There would be no increase in
                                        information the grantee submits in its      estimated burden hours.
                                        annual performance report.
Sections 643.22 (TS) and 643.32......  The proposed regulations would amend the    1840-NEW7 (TS) This would be
                                        prior experience (PE) criteria the          a new collection. A separate
                                        Secretary uses to award PE points. Under    60-day Federal Register
                                        the proposed regulations we would award     notice will be published to
                                        PE points for each criterion by             solicit comments on this
                                        determining whether the grantee met or      form following the next
                                        exceeded applicable project objectives.     competition for new TS
                                        This determination would be based on the    grants.
                                        information the grantee submits in its     The revised APR is needed for
                                        annual performance report.                  fall 2012 data collection.
                                       The proposed regulations also amend the     The proposed regulations
                                        recordkeeping requirements for TS.          would increase grantee data
                                                                                    collection and reporting
                                                                                    requirements in two ways.
                                                                                    First, the proposed
                                                                                    regulatory amendments to the
                                                                                    PE criteria, which address
                                                                                    statutory changes that
                                                                                    expand outcome and PE
                                                                                    criteria for TS grantees to
                                                                                    include such measures as the
                                                                                    postsecondary completion of
                                                                                    participants, are expected
                                                                                    to increase grantees'
                                                                                    reporting burden.
                                                                                    Additionally, the proposed
                                                                                    regulatory amendments to
                                                                                    recordkeeping requirements
                                                                                    would require grantees to
                                                                                    maintain a list of courses
                                                                                    taken by participants
                                                                                    receiving support to
                                                                                    complete a rigorous
                                                                                    secondary school program of
                                                                                    study, a new data collection
                                                                                    that would also increase
                                                                                    grantees' burden hours. The
                                                                                    Department expects these two
                                                                                    proposed changes to result
                                                                                    in an increase of 15 burden
                                                                                    hours per grantee.
                                                                                   In total, there would be an
                                                                                    estimated burden increase of
                                                                                    7,050 hours.

[[Page 13873]]

 
Section 644.22 (EOC).................  The proposed regulations would amend the    1840-NEW8 (EOC) This would be
                                        prior experience (PE) criteria the          a new collection. A separate
                                        Secretary uses to award PE points. Under    60-day Federal Register
                                        the proposed regulations we would award     notice will be published to
                                        PE points for each criterion by             solicit comments on this
                                        determining whether the grantee met or      form following the next
                                        exceeded applicable project objectives.     competition for new EOC
                                        This determination would be based on the    grants. The revised APR is
                                        information the grantee submits in its      needed for fall 2012 data
                                        annual performance report.                  collection.
                                                                                   Because the new statutory PE
                                                                                    criteria are similar to the
                                                                                    current regulatory PE
                                                                                    criteria, the Department
                                                                                    does not expect the proposed
                                                                                    changes to affect the burden
                                                                                    on EOC grantees.
                                                                                   However, the Department
                                                                                    expects that burden hours
                                                                                    would be reduced as a result
                                                                                    of the development of a new
                                                                                    TS APR form, since such a
                                                                                    form would allow the current
                                                                                    TS/EOC APR form to be used
                                                                                    exclusively by EOC grantees.
                                                                                   In total, there would be an
                                                                                    estimated burden decrease of
                                                                                    2,820 hours.
Section 645.32 (UB)..................  The proposed regulations would amend the    1840-NEW9 (UB) This would be
                                        prior experience (PE) criteria the          a new collection. A separate
                                        Secretary uses to award PE points. Under    60-day Federal Register
                                        the proposed regulations we would award     notice will be published to
                                        PE points for each criterion by             solicit comments on this
                                        determining whether the grantee met or      form following the next
                                        exceeded applicable project objectives.     competition for new UB
                                        This determination would be based on the    grants. The revised APR is
                                        information the grantee submits in its      needed for fall 2012 or 2013
                                        annual performance report.                  data collection.
                                                                                   The proposed regulatory
                                                                                    amendments to the PE
                                                                                    criteria, which address
                                                                                    statutory changes that
                                                                                    expand outcome and PE
                                                                                    criteria for UB grantees to
                                                                                    include such measures as the
                                                                                    postsecondary completion of
                                                                                    participants, are expected
                                                                                    to increase grantees'
                                                                                    reporting burden. The
                                                                                    Department expects proposed
                                                                                    changes to result in an
                                                                                    increase of six burden hours
                                                                                    per grantee.
                                                                                   In total, there would be an
                                                                                    estimated burden increase of
                                                                                    6,858 hours.
Sections 646.22 and 646.33 (SSS).....  The proposed regulations would amend the    1840-NEW10 (SSS) This would
                                        prior experience (PE) criteria the          be a new collection. A
                                        Secretary uses to award PE points. Under    separate 60-day Federal
                                        the proposed regulations we would award     Register notice will be
                                        PE points for each criterion by             published to solicit
                                        determining whether the grantee met or      comments on this form
                                        exceeded applicable project objectives.     following the next
                                        This determination would be based on the    competition for new SSS
                                        information the grantee submits in its      grants. The revised APR is
                                        annual performance report.                  needed for fall 2011 data
                                       The proposed regulations also add a new      collection.
                                        section on matching requirements for SSS.  The proposed regulations
                                                                                    would increase grantee data
                                                                                    collection and reporting
                                                                                    requirements in two ways.
                                                                                    First, the proposed
                                                                                    regulatory amendments to the
                                                                                    PE criteria, which address
                                                                                    statutory requirements for
                                                                                    tracking the academic
                                                                                    progress of SSS participants
                                                                                    through degree completion,
                                                                                    would increase the reporting
                                                                                    burden by six hours for each
                                                                                    grantee. Additionally, for
                                                                                    those grantees that are
                                                                                    required to provide matching
                                                                                    funds for grant aid
                                                                                    (estimated at 50 percent of
                                                                                    SSS grantees), the proposed
                                                                                    regulations would increase
                                                                                    burden by an estimated two
                                                                                    hours per grantee. In total,
                                                                                    there would be an estimated
                                                                                    burden increase of 6,720
                                                                                    hours.
Section 647.22 (McNair)..............  The proposed regulations would amend the    1840-NEW11 (McNair) This
                                        prior experience (PE) criteria the          would be a new collection. A
                                        Secretary uses to award PE points. Under    separate 60-day Federal
                                        the proposed regulations we would award     Register notice will be
                                        PE points for each criterion by             published to solicit
                                        determining whether the grantee met or      comments on this form
                                        exceeded applicable project objectives.     following the next
                                        This determination would be based on the    competition for new McNair
                                        information the grantee submits in its      grants. The revised APR is
                                        annual performance report.                  needed for fall 2012 or 2013
                                                                                    data collection.
                                                                                   The proposed regulatory
                                                                                    amendments to the PE
                                                                                    criteria, which address
                                                                                    statutory requirements for
                                                                                    long-term tracking of the
                                                                                    academic progress of McNair
                                                                                    participants through
                                                                                    completion of the doctoral
                                                                                    degree, would increase the
                                                                                    reporting burden by four
                                                                                    hours for each grantee. In
                                                                                    total, there would be an
                                                                                    estimated burden increase of
                                                                                    760 hours.

[[Page 13874]]

 
694.7, 694.8, and 694.9 GEAR UP......  The proposed regulations would provide      1840-NEW12 This would be a
                                        that an applicant for GEAR UP funding       new collection. A separate
                                        must state in its application the           30-day Federal Register
                                        percentage of the cost of the GEAR UP       notice will be published to
                                        project that the application will provide   solicit comments on this
                                        from non-Federal funds.                     form prior to the next
                                       The proposed regulations also would          competition for new grants
                                        provide that the Secretary may waive a      scheduled for fall 2010.
                                        portion of the matching requirement in     There would be an estimated
                                        response to a written request for a         burden increase of 6,250
                                        waiver of the match. This written request   hours.
                                        can be included in the application or      1840-NEW13 This would be a
                                        submitted separately.                       new collection. A separate
                                       The proposed regulations also would          60-day Federal Register
                                        provide the conditions that must be met     notice will be published to
                                        for the Secretary to approve a request to   solicit comments on this
                                        waive a portion of the matching             form following the next
                                        requirement.                                competition for new GEAR UP
                                                                                    grants. There would be an
                                                                                    estimated burden decrease of
                                                                                    7,860 hours.
                                                                                   1840-NEW14 This would be a
                                                                                    new collection. A separate
                                                                                    60-day Federal Register
                                                                                    notice will be published to
                                                                                    solicit comments on this
                                                                                    form following the next
                                                                                    competition for new GEAR UP
                                                                                    grants. There would be an
                                                                                    estimated burden decrease of
                                                                                    5,625 hours.
                                                                                   The proposed regulations
                                                                                    provide that an applicant
                                                                                    for GEAR UP funding must
                                                                                    state in its application the
                                                                                    percentage of the cost of
                                                                                    the GEAR UP project that the
                                                                                    applicant will provide from
                                                                                    non-Federal funds. The
                                                                                    proposed regulations also
                                                                                    provide that the Secretary
                                                                                    may waive a portion of the
                                                                                    matching requirement in
                                                                                    response to a grantee's
                                                                                    written request for a waiver
                                                                                    of the match. The proposed
                                                                                    regulations further provide
                                                                                    the conditions that must be
                                                                                    met for the Secretary to
                                                                                    approve a request to waive a
                                                                                    portion of the matching
                                                                                    requirement and that if the
                                                                                    Secretary grants a tentative
                                                                                    waiver to a new grantee for
                                                                                    the full project period
                                                                                    because of a pre-existing or
                                                                                    ongoing economic hardship,
                                                                                    the recipient will need to
                                                                                    submit documentation every
                                                                                    two years to demonstrate
                                                                                    that conditions have not
                                                                                    changed.
694.14(c)............................  The proposed regulations would require      1840-NEW13 This would be a
                                        grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant        new collection. A separate
                                        awards were made on or after August 14,     60-day Federal Register
                                        2008 and grantees whose initial GEAR UP     notice will be published to
                                        grant awards were made prior to August      solicit comments on this
                                        14, 2008 to furnish information on the      form following the next
                                        amount of any Federal and non-Federal       competition for new GEAR UP
                                        funds reserved and held for GEAR UP         grants. There would be an
                                        scholarships and the disbursement of        estimated burden increase of
                                        these scholarship funds until these funds   8,760 hours.
                                        are fully expended or returned to the      1840-NEW14 This would be a
                                        Secretary.                                  new collection. A separate
                                                                                    60-day Federal Register
                                                                                    notice will be published to
                                                                                    solicit comments on this
                                                                                    form following the next
                                                                                    competition for new GEAR
                                                                                    grants. There will be an
                                                                                    estimated burden increase of
                                                                                    6,925 hours.
                                                                                   The proposed regulations
                                                                                    require grantees whose
                                                                                    initial GEAR UP grant awards
                                                                                    were made on or after August
                                                                                    14, 2008 and grantees whose
                                                                                    initial GEAR UP grant awards
                                                                                    were made prior to August
                                                                                    14, 2008, to provide
                                                                                    information as the Secretary
                                                                                    may require on the amount of
                                                                                    any Federal and non-Federal
                                                                                    funds reserved and held for
                                                                                    GEAR UP scholarships and the
                                                                                    disbursement of these
                                                                                    scholarship funds. Reporting
                                                                                    would be required until
                                                                                    these funds are fully
                                                                                    expended or, if Federal
                                                                                    funds, returned to the
                                                                                    Secretary.
694.19...............................  The proposed regulations provide that the   1840-NEW12 This would be a
                                        Secretary awards competitive preference     new collection. A separate
                                        priority points to an eligible applicant    30-day Federal Register
                                        for a State grant that has carried out a    notice will be published to
                                        successful State GEAR UP grant prior to     solicit comments on this
                                        August 14, 2008 and has a prior,            form prior to the next
                                        demonstrated commitment to early            competition for new grants
                                        intervention, leading to college access     scheduled for fall 2010.
                                        through collaboration and replication of   There would be an estimated
                                        successful strategies.                      burden increase of 6,250
                                                                                    hours.
                                                                                   The proposed regulations
                                                                                    would provide that the
                                                                                    Secretary awards competitive
                                                                                    preference priority points
                                                                                    to an eligible applicant for
                                                                                    a State grant that has
                                                                                    carried out a successful
                                                                                    State GEAR UP grant prior to
                                                                                    August 14, 2008 and has a
                                                                                    prior, demonstrated
                                                                                    commitment to early
                                                                                    intervention leading to
                                                                                    college access through
                                                                                    collaboration and
                                                                                    replication of successful
                                                                                    strategies.

[[Page 13875]]

 
694.20...............................  Under the proposed regulations, GEAR UP     1840-NEW12 This would be a
                                        applicants would be permitted to request    new collection. A separate
                                        in their applications a seventh year of     30-day Federal Register
                                        funding so that the State or Partnership    notice will be published to
                                        may continue to provide services to         solicit comments on this
                                        students through their first year of        form prior to the next
                                        attendance at an institution of higher      competition for new grants
                                        education.                                  scheduled for fall 2010.
                                                                                   Burden would increase by 300
                                                                                    hours.
                                                                                   Under the proposed
                                                                                    regulations, GEAR UP
                                                                                    applicants would be
                                                                                    permitted to request in
                                                                                    their applications a seventh
                                                                                    year of funding so that the
                                                                                    State or Partnership may
                                                                                    continue to provide services
                                                                                    to students through their
                                                                                    first year of attendance at
                                                                                    an institution of higher
                                                                                    education.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you want to comment on the proposed information collection 
requirements, please send your comments to the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. 
Department of Education. Send these comments by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f70766d7e607b707c747a6b7f50525d115a504f11585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e0afa9b2a1bfa4afa3aba5b4a08f8d82ce858f90ce878f96">[email protected]</span></a> or by fax to (202) 395-6974. You may also send a 
copy of these comments to the Department contact named in the ADDRESSES 
section of this preamble.
    We consider your comments on these proposed collections of 
information in--
    <bullet> Deciding whether the proposed collections are necessary 
for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the 
information will have practical use;
    <bullet> Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of 
the proposed collections, including the validity of our methodology and 
assumptions;
    <bullet> Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 
information we collect; and
    <bullet> Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This 
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms 
of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of 
responses.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of 
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. 
Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration, 
it is important that OMB receives the comments within 30 days of 
publication. This does not affect the deadline for your comments to us 
on the proposed regulations.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the 
Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a 
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and 
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 
financial assistance.
    In accordance with the order, we intend this document to provide 
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for 
these programs.

Assessment of Educational Impact

    In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions 
Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests comments on 
whether these proposed regulations would require transmission of 
information that any other agency or authority of the United States 
gathers or makes available.

Electronic Access to This Document

    You may view this document, as well as all other Department of 
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe 
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: 
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
    To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. 
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in 
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

    Note: The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers HEP/CAMP: 84.141A, 
84.149A; TRIO: 84.042A, 84.044A, 84.047A, 84.047M, 84.047V, 84.066A, 
84.103A, 84.217A; GEAR UP: 84.334A, 84.334S.)

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Parts 206, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 
647,and 694

    Colleges and universities, Disadvantaged students, Educational 
programs, Discretionary grants, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Training.

    Dated: March 3, 2010.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary proposes 
to amend parts 206, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, and 694 of title 34 
of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 206--SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES 
ARE ENGAGED IN MIGRANT AND OTHER SEASONAL FARMWORK--HIGH SCHOOL 
EQUIVALENCY PROGRAM AND COLLEGE ASSISTANCE MIGRANT PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation for part 206 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 206.3 is amended by:
    A. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the word ``parent'' and adding, in 
its place, the words ``immediate family member''.
    B. Revising paragraph (a)(2).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  206.3  Who is eligible to participate in a project?

    (a) * * *
    (2) The person must have participated (with respect to HEP within 
the last 24 months), or be eligible to participate, in programs under 
34 CFR part 200, subpart C (Title I--Migrant Education Program) or 20 
CFR part 633 (Employment and Training Administration, Department of 
Labor--Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Programs).
* * * * *
    3. Section 206.4 is amended by:
    A. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) as paragraphs (a)(7) 
and (a)(8), respectively.
    B. Adding a new paragraph (a)(6).
    C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(9) through (a)(11).
    The additions read as follows:

[[Page 13876]]

Sec.  206.4  What regulations apply to these programs?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (6) 34 CFR part 84 (Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free 
Workplace (Financial Assistance)).
* * * * *
    (9) 34 CFR part 97 (Protection of Human Subjects).
    (10) 34 CFR part 98 (Student Rights in Research, Experimental 
Programs, and Testing).
    (11) 34 CFR part 99 (Family Educational Rights and Privacy).
* * * * *
    4. Section 206.5 is amended by:
    A. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(5), (c)(6), and (c)(7) as 
paragraphs (c)(6), (c)(7), and (c)(8), respectively.
    B. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).
    C. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(7), removing the citation 
``(c)(7)'' and adding, in its place, the citation ``(c)(8)''.
    D. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (c)(8).
    E. In paragraph (d)--
    1. Removing the citation ``34 CFR 201.3'' and adding, in its place, 
the citation ``34 CFR 200.81''; and
    2. Removing the words ``Chapter 1'' and adding, in their place, the 
words ``Title I''.
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  206.5  What definitions apply to these programs?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) Immediate family member means one or more of the following:
    (i) A spouse.
    (ii) A parent, step-parent, adoptive parent, foster parent, or 
anyone with guardianship.
    (iii) Any person who--
    (A) Claims the individual as a dependent on a Federal income tax 
return for either of the previous two years, or
    (B) Resides in the same household as the individual, supports that 
individual financially, and is a relative of that individual.
* * * * *
    (8) Seasonal farmworker means a person whose primary employment was 
in farmwork on a temporary or seasonal basis (that is, not a constant 
year-round activity) for a period of at least 75 days within the past 
24 months.
* * * * *
    5. Section 206.10 is amended by:
    A. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B), adding the words ``(including 
preparation for college entrance examinations)'' after the word 
``program''.
    B. In paragraph (b)(1)(v), removing the words ``Weekly stipends'' 
and adding, in their place, the word ``Stipends''.
    C. In paragraph (b)(1)(viii), adding the words ``(such as 
transportation and child care)'' after the word ``services''.
    D. In paragraph (b)(1), adding a new paragraph (ix).
    E. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii) introductory text, adding the words ``to 
improve placement, persistence, and retention in postsecondary 
education'' after the word ``services''.
    F. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A), by--
    1. Removing the word ``and''; and
    2. Adding the words ``economic education, or personal finance'' 
before the word ``counseling''.
    G. Redesignating paragraph (b)(2)(vi) as paragraph (b)(2)(vii).
    H. Adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(vi).
    I. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(2)(vii), removing the words 
``support services'', and adding, in their place, the words ``essential 
supportive services (such as transportation and child care),''.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  206.10  What types of services may be provided?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ix) Other activities to improve persistence and retention in 
postsecondary education.
    (2) * * *
    (vi) Internships.
* * * * *
    6. Section 206.11 is amended by:
    A. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the word ``and'' after the 
punctuation``;''.
    B. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the punctuation ``.'' after the 
word ``aid'' and adding, in its place, the words ``, and coordinating 
those services, assistance, and aid with other non-program services, 
assistance, and aid, including services, assistance, and aid provided 
by community-based organizations, which may include mentoring and 
guidance; and''.
    C. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  206.11  What types of CAMP services must be provided?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) For students attending two-year institutions of higher 
education, encouraging the students to transfer to four-year 
institutions of higher education, where appropriate, and monitoring the 
rate of transfer of those students.
* * * * *


Sec.  206.20  [Amended]

    7. Section 206.20(b)(2) is amended by removing the amount 
``$150,000'' and adding, in its place, the amount ``$180,000''.
    8. Section 206.31 is added to subpart D of part 206 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  206.31  How does the Secretary evaluate points for prior 
experience for HEP and CAMP service delivery?

    (a) In the case of an applicant for a HEP award, the Secretary 
considers the applicant's experience in implementing an expiring HEP 
project with respect to--
    (1) Whether the applicant served the number of participants 
described in its approved application;
    (2) The extent to which the applicant met or exceeded its funded 
objectives with regard to project participants, including the targeted 
number and percentage of--
    (i) Participants who received a general educational development 
(GED) credential; and
    (ii) GED credential recipients who were reported as entering 
postsecondary education programs, career positions, or the military; 
and
    (3) The extent to which the applicant met the administrative 
requirements, including recordkeeping, reporting, and financial 
accountability under the terms of the previously funded award.
    (b) In the case of an applicant for a CAMP award, the Secretary 
considers the applicant's experience in implementing an expiring CAMP 
project with respect to--
    (1) Whether the applicant served the number of participants 
described in its approved application;
    (2) The extent to which the applicant met or exceeded its funded 
objectives with regard to project participants, including the targeted 
number and percentage of participants who--
    (i) Successfully completed the first year of college; and
    (ii) Continued to be enrolled in postsecondary education after 
completing their first year of college; and
    (3) The extent to which the applicant met the administrative 
requirements, including recordkeeping, reporting, and financial 
accountability under the terms of the previously funded award.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2(e))

PART 642--TRAINING PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL TRIO PROGRAMS

    9. The authority citation for part 642 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-17, unless otherwise 
noted.

[[Page 13877]]

Subpart A of Part 642--[Amended]

    10. Section 642.1 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  642.1  What is the Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs?

    The Training Program for Federal TRIO programs, referred to in 
these regulations as the Training program, provides Federal financial 
assistance to train the leadership personnel and staff employed in, or 
preparing for employment in, Federal TRIO program projects.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-17)


    11. Section 642.2 is amended by revising the section heading to 
read as follows:


Sec.  642.2  Who are eligible applicants?

* * * * *
    12. Section 642.3 is amended by:
    A. Revising the section heading.
    B. In paragraph (a), adding the word ``funded'' after the word 
``projects''.
    C. In paragraph (b) by removing the words ``staff or''; adding the 
words ``or staff'' after the word ``personnel''; and adding the word 
``funded'' after the word ``projects''.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  642.3  Who are eligible participants?

* * * * *


Sec. Sec.  642.4 and 642.5   [Redesignated as Sec. Sec.  642.5 and 
642.6]

    13. Sections 642.4 and 642.5 are redesignated as Sec. Sec.  642.5 
and 642.6.
    14. A new Sec.  642.4 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  642.4  How long is a project period?

    A project period under the Training program is two years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-17(b))


    15. Newly redesignated Sec.  642.5 is amended by:
    A. Revising the section heading.
    B. Revising paragraph (a).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  642.5  What regulations apply?

* * * * *
    (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations 
(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec.  75.215-75.221), 
77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
    16. Newly redesignated Sec.  642.6 is amended by:
    A. Revising the section heading.
    B. In paragraph (b) by revising the introductory text; revising 
definitions of ``Federal TRIO programs'', ``Institution of higher 
education'', ``Leadership personnel''; adding, in alphabetical order, 
new definitions for ``Foster care youth'', ``Homeless children and 
youth'', ``Individual with disabilities'', and ``Veteran''; and 
removing the authority citation following the definition of ``Federal 
TRIO programs''; and
    C. Adding an authority citation at the end of the section.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  642.6  What definitions apply?

* * * * *
    (b) Definitions that apply to this part.
* * * * *
    Federal TRIO programs means those programs authorized under section 
402A of the Act: the Upward Bound, Talent Search, Student Support 
Services, Educational Opportunity Centers, and Ronald E. McNair 
Postbaccalaureate Achievement programs.
    Foster care youth means youth who are in foster care or who are 
aging out of the foster care system.
    Homeless children and youth means persons defined in section 725 of 
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a).
    Individual with disabilities means a person who has a diagnosed 
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits that person's 
ability to participate in educational experiences and opportunities.
* * * * *
    Institution of higher education means an educational institution as 
defined in sections 101 and 102 of the Act.
    Leadership personnel means project directors, coordinators, and 
other individuals involved with the supervision and direction of 
projects funded under the Federal TRIO programs.
    Veteran means a person who--
    (1) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 
United States for a period of more than 180 days and was discharged or 
released under conditions other than dishonorable;
    (2) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 
United States and was discharged or released because of a service 
connected disability;
    (3) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 
United States and was called to active duty for a period of more than 
30 days; or
    (4) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 
United States who served on active duty in support of a contingency 
operation (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, 
United States Code) on or after September 11, 2001.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., 1070a-11, 1070-17(b), 1088, 
1141, and 1144a)


    17. Section 642.7 is added to subpart A of part 642 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  642.7  How many applications may an eligible applicant submit?

    An applicant may submit more than one application for Training 
grants as long as each application describes a project that addresses a 
different absolute priority that is designated in the Federal Register 
notice inviting applications.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d, 1070d-1d; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)


    18. Subpart B of part 642 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart B--What Types of Projects and Activities Does the Secretary 
Assist under this Program?
Sec.
642.10 What types of projects does the Secretary assist?
642.11 What activities does the Secretary assist?
642.12 What activities may a project conduct?

Subpart B--What Types of Projects and Activities Does the Secretary 
Assist under this Program?


Sec.  642.10  What types of projects does the Secretary assist?

    The Secretary assists projects that train the leadership personnel 
and staff of projects funded under the Federal TRIO Programs to enable 
them to operate those projects more effectively.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-17)

Sec.  642.11  What activities does the Secretary assist?

    (a) Each year, one or more Training Program projects must provide 
training for new project directors.
    (b) Each year, one or more Training Program projects must offer 
training covering the following topics:
    (1) The legislative and regulatory requirements for operating 
projects funded under the Federal TRIO programs.
    (2) Assisting students to receive adequate financial aid from 
programs assisted under title IV of the Act and from other programs.
    (3) The design and operation of model programs for projects funded 
under the Federal TRIO programs.
    (4) The use of appropriate educational technology in the operation 
of projects funded under the Federal TRIO programs.
    (5) Strategies for recruiting and serving hard-to-reach 
populations, including students who are limited English proficient, 
students from groups

[[Page 13878]]

that are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education, 
students who are individuals with disabilities, students who are 
homeless children and youths, students who are foster care youth, or 
other disconnected students.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-17)

Sec.  642.12  What activities may a project conduct?

    A Training program project may include on-site training, on-line 
training, conferences, internships, seminars, workshops, and the 
publication of manuals designed to improve the operations of Federal 
TRIO program projects.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-17(b))

PART 642--[AMENDED]

    19. Part 642 is amended by redesignating subparts D and E as 
subparts C and D, respectively.

Subpart C of Part 642--[Amended]

    Sec. Sec.  642.30, 642.31, 642.32, 642.33, and 642.34 [Redesignated 
as Sec. Sec.  642.20, 642.21, 642.22, 642.23, and 642.24]
    20. Newly redesignated subpart C of part 642 is amended by 
redesignating Sec. Sec.  642.30, 642.31, 642.32, 642.33, and 642.34 as 
Sec. Sec.  642.20, 642.21, 642.22, 642.23, and 642.24, respectively.
    21. Newly redesignated Sec.  642.20 is amended by:
    A. Revising the section heading.
    B. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), removing the citation 
``Sec.  642.31'' and adding, in its place, the citation ``Sec.  
642.21''.
    C. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the number ``100'' and adding, in 
its place, the number ``75''.
    D. Revising paragraph (b).
    E. Adding new paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  642.20  How does the Secretary evaluate an application for a new 
award?

* * * * *
    (b) In addition, for an applicant who is conducting a Training 
program in the fiscal year immediately prior to the fiscal year for 
which the applicant is applying, the Secretary evaluates the 
applicant's prior experience (PE) of high quality service delivery, as 
provided in Sec.  642.22, based on the applicant's performance during 
the first project year of that expiring Training program grant.
    (c) The Secretary selects applications for funding within each 
specific absolute priority established for the competition in rank 
order on the basis of the score received by the application in the peer 
review process.
    (d) Within each specific absolute priority, if there are 
insufficient funds to fund all applications at the next peer review 
score, the Secretary adds the PE points awarded under Sec.  642.22 to 
the peer review score to determine an adjusted total score for those 
applications. The Secretary makes awards at the next peer review score 
to the applications that have the highest total adjusted score.
    (e) In the event a tie score still exists, the Secretary will 
select for funding the applicant that has the greatest capacity to 
provide training to eligible participants in all regions of the Nation, 
consistent with Sec.  642.23.
* * * * *
    22. Newly redesignated Sec.  642.21 is amended by:
    A. Revising the section heading.
    B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(v)(C).
    C. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(C).
    D. Removing paragraph (f).
    E. Adding an OMB control number parenthetical following the 
section.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  642.21  What selection criteria does the Secretary use?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (C) Individuals with disabilities; and
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (C) Individuals with disabilities; and
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW1)
* * * * *
    23. Newly redesignated Sec.  642.22 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  642.22  How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?

    (a) In the case of an application described in Sec.  642.20(b), the 
Secretary--
    (1) Evaluates the applicant's performance under its expiring 
Training program grant;
    (2) To determine the number of PE points to be awarded, uses the 
approved project objectives for the applicant's expiring Training 
program grant and the information the applicant submitted in its annual 
performance report (APR); and
    (3) May adjust a calculated PE score or decide not to award PE 
points if other information such as audit reports, site visit reports, 
and project evaluation reports indicate the APR data used to calculate 
PE are incorrect.
    (b)(1) The Secretary may add from 1 to 15 points to the point score 
obtained on the basis of the selection criteria in Sec.  642.21, based 
on the applicant's success in meeting the administrative requirements 
and programmatic objectives of paragraph (e) of this section.
    (2) The maximum possible score for each criterion is indicated in 
the parentheses preceding the criterion.
    (c) The Secretary awards no PE points for a given year to an 
applicant that does not serve at least 90 percent of the approved 
number of participants. For purposes of this section, the approved 
number of participants is the total number of participants the project 
would serve as agreed upon by the grantee and the Secretary.
    (d) For the criterion specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section 
(Number of participants), the Secretary awards no PE points if the 
applicant did not serve the approved number of participants.
    (e) The Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the basis of the 
following criteria:
    (1) (4 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant 
provided training to the approved number of participants.
    (2) Training objectives. Whether the applicant met or exceeded its 
objectives for:
    (i) (4 points) Assisting the participants in developing increased 
qualifications and skills to meet the needs of disadvantaged students.
    (ii) (4 points) Providing the participants with an increased 
knowledge and understanding of the Federal TRIO Programs.
    (3) (3 points) Administrative requirements. Whether the applicant 
met all the administrative requirements under the terms of the expiring 
grant, including recordkeeping, reporting, and financial 
accountability.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1894-0003.)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)


    24. Newly redesignated Sec.  642.23 is amended by revising the 
section heading to read as follows:


Sec.  642.23  How does the Secretary ensure geographic distribution of 
awards?

* * * * *
    25. Newly redesignated Sec.  642.24 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  642.24  What are the Secretary's priorities for funding?

    (a) The Secretary, after consultation with regional and State 
professional associations of persons having special knowledge with 
respect to the training of Special Programs personnel, may select one 
or more of the following subjects as training priorities:

[[Page 13879]]

    (1) Basic skills instruction in reading, mathematics, written and 
oral communication, and study skills.
    (2) Counseling.
    (3) Assessment of student needs.
    (4) Academic tests and testing.
    (5) College and university admissions policies and procedures.
    (6) Cultural enrichment programs.
    (7) Career planning.
    (8) Tutorial programs.
    (9) Retention and graduation strategies.
    (10) Strategies for preparing students for doctoral studies.
    (11) Project evaluation.
    (12) Budget management.
    (13) Personnel management.
    (14) Reporting student and project performance.
    (15) Coordinating project activities with other available resources 
and activities.
    (16) General project management for new directors.
    (17) Statutory and regulatory requirements for the operation of 
projects funded under the Federal TRIO programs.
    (18) Assisting students in receiving adequate financial aid from 
programs assisted under title IV of the Act and from other programs.
    (19) The design and operation of model programs for projects funded 
under the Federal TRIO programs.
    (20) The use of appropriate educational technology in the operation 
of projects funded under the Federal TRIO programs.
    (21) Strategies for recruiting and serving hard to reach 
populations, including students who are limited English proficient, 
students from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in 
postsecondary education, students who are individuals with 
disabilities, students who are homeless children and youths, students 
who are foster care youth, or other disconnected students.
    (b) The Secretary annually funds training on the subjects listed in 
paragraphs (a)(17), (18), (19), (20), and (21) of this section.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-17)


    26. Section 642.25 is added to subpart C of part 642 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  642.25  What is the review process for unsuccessful applicants?

    (a) Technical or administrative error for applications not 
reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated 
during the competition may request that the Secretary review the 
application if--
    (i) The applicant has met all of the application submission 
requirements included in the Federal Register notice inviting 
applications and the other published application materials for the 
competition; and
    (ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 
Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or 
administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.
    (2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an 
application includes--
    (i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of 
applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures 
included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the 
competition;
    (ii) An error in determining an applicant's eligibility for funding 
consideration, which may include, but is not limited to--
    (A) An incorrect conclusion that the application was submitted by 
an ineligible applicant;
    (B) An incorrect conclusion that the application exceeded the 
published page limit;
    (C) An incorrect conclusion that the applicant requested funding 
greater than the published maximum award; or
    (D) An incorrect conclusion that the application was missing 
critical sections of the application; and
    (iii) Any other mishandling of the application that resulted in an 
otherwise eligible application not being reviewed during the 
competition.
    (3)(i) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 
Department's agent made a technical or administrative error, the 
Secretary has the application evaluated and scored.
    (ii) If the total score assigned the application would have 
resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the 
program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior 
to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of 
applications described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Administrative or scoring error for applications that were 
reviewed. (1) An applicant that was not selected for funding during a 
competition may request that the Secretary conduct a second review of 
the application if--
    (i) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 
Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made an 
administrative or scoring error in the review of its application; and
    (ii) The final score assigned to the application is within the 
funding band described in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) An administrative error relates to either the PE points or the 
scores assigned to the application by the peer reviewers.
    (i) For PE points, an administrative error includes mathematical 
errors made by the Department or the Department's agent in the 
calculation of the PE points or a failure to correctly add the earned 
PE points to the peer reviewer score.
    (ii) For the peer review score, an administrative error is applying 
the wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.
    (3)(i) A scoring error relates only to the peer review process and 
includes errors caused by a reviewer who, in assigning points--
    (A) Uses criteria not required by the applicable law or program 
regulations, the Federal Register notice inviting applications, the 
other published application materials for the competition, or guidance 
provided to the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or
    (B) Does not consider relevant information included in the 
appropriate section of the application.
    (ii) The term ``scoring error'' does not include--
    (A) A peer reviewer's appropriate use of his or her professional 
judgment in evaluating and scoring an application;
    (B) Any situation in which the applicant did not include 
information needed to evaluate its response to a specific selection 
criterion in the appropriate section of the application as stipulated 
in the Federal Register notice inviting applications or the other 
published application materials for the competition; or
    (C) Any error by the applicant.
    (c) Procedures for the second review. (1) To ensure the timely 
awarding of grants under the competition, the Secretary sets aside a 
percentage of the funds allotted for the competition to be awarded 
after the second review is completed.
    (2) After the competition, the Secretary makes new awards in rank 
order as described in Sec.  642.20 based on the available funds for the 
competition minus the funds set aside for the second review.
    (3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to 
successful applicants, the Secretary notifies each unsuccessful 
applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the 
funding band for the second review and provides copies of the peer 
reviewers' evaluations of the applicant's application and the 
applicant's PE score, if applicable.
    (4) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the 
competition as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this

[[Page 13880]]

section and whose application received a score within the funding band 
as described in paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second 
review if the applicant demonstrates that the Department, the 
Department's agent, or a peer reviewer made an administrative or 
scoring error as discussed in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first 
review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 
application received a score within the funding band as described in 
paragraph (d) of this section has 15 calendar days after receiving 
notification that its application was not funded in which to submit a 
written request for a second review in accordance with the instructions 
and due date provided in the Secretary's written notification.
    (6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be 
received by the Department or submitted electronically to a designated 
e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established by the 
Secretary.
    (7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 
Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE 
points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, 
the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct 
number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application 
would have resulted in funding of the application during the 
competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds 
the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the 
second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of 
this section.
    (8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the 
Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error 
that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer 
reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score 
assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the 
application during the competition and the program has funds available, 
the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of 
applications based on the second peer review of applications described 
in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
    (9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring 
error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary 
convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the 
requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
    (10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer 
review are used in the second ranking of applications. The average 
score obtained from the second peer review panel is the final peer 
reviewer score for the application and will be used even if the second 
review results in a lower score for the application than that obtained 
in the initial review.
    (11) For applications in the funding band, the Secretary funds 
these applications in rank order based on adjusted scores and the 
available funds that have been set aside for the second review of 
applications.
    (d) Process for establishing a funding band. (1) For each 
competition, the Secretary establishes a funding band for the second 
review of applications.
    (2) The Secretary establishes the funding band for each competition 
based on the amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second 
review of applications.
    (3) The funding band is composed of those applications--
    (i) With a rank-order score before the second review that is below 
the lowest score of applications funded after the first review; and
    (ii) That would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the 
funds that were set aside for the second review of applications for the 
competition.
    (e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary's determination of whether 
the applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the 
Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application are final and not 
subject to further appeal or challenge.
    (2) An application that scored below the established funding band 
for the competition is not eligible for a second review.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW1.)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)


    27. A new Sec.  642.26 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  642.26  How does the Secretary set the amount of a grant?

    (a) The Secretary sets the amount of a grant on the basis of--
    (1) 34 CFR 75.232 and 75.233, for a new grant, and
    (2) 34 CFR 75.253, for the second year of a project period.
    (b) The Secretary uses the available funds to set the amount of the 
grant at the lesser of--
    (1) 170,000; or
    (2) The amount requested by the applicant.

Subpart D of Part 642--[Amended]


Sec.  642.40 and 642.41  [Redesignated as Sec.  642.30 and 642.31]

    28. Newly redesignated subpart D of part 642 is amended by 
redesignating Sec. Sec.  642.40 and 642.41 as Sec. Sec.  642.30 and 
642.31, respectively.
    29. Newly redesignated Sec.  642.30 is amended by:
    A. Revising the section heading.
    B. In paragraph (d), removing the words ``if approved in writing by 
the Secretary''.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  642.30  What are allowable costs?

* * * * *
    30. Newly redesignated Sec.  642.31 is amended by revising the 
section heading to read as follows:


Sec.  642.31  What are unallowable costs?

* * * * *

PART 643--TALENT SEARCH

    31. The authority citation for part 643 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-12, unless otherwise 
noted.

    32. Section 643.1 is amended by:
    A. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``, and facilitate the 
application for,'' after the word ``of''.
    B. Revising paragraph (c).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  643.1  What is the Talent Search program?

* * * * *
    (c) Encourage persons who have not completed education programs at 
the secondary or postsecondary level to enter or reenter and complete 
these programs.
* * * * *
    33. Section 643.2 is amended by:
    A. In the introductory text, adding the word ``entities'' after the 
word ``following''.
    B. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``, including a community-
based organization with experience in serving disadvantaged youth'' 
after the word ``organization''.
    C. Removing paragraph (d).
    D. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d).
    E. Adding a new paragraph (c).
    F. In newly redesignated paragraph (d), removing the words 
``paragraphs (a) and (b)'' and adding, in their place, the words 
``paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)''.
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  643.2  Who is eligible for a grant?

* * * * *
    (c) A secondary school.
* * * * *

[[Page 13881]]

    34. Section 643.3 is amended by:
    A. In paragraph (a)(3)(i), removing the words ``, has potential for 
a program of postsecondary education, and needs one or more of the 
services provided by the project in order to undertake such a 
program''.
    B. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), removing the words ``, has the ability 
to complete such a program, and needs one or more of the services 
provided by the project to reenter such a program''.
    C. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c).
    D. Adding a new paragraph (b).
    E. In newly redesignated paragraph (c), removing the citation 
``643.6(b)'' and adding, in its place, the citation ``643.7(b)''.
    The addition reads as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) An individual is eligible to receive support to complete a 
rigorous secondary school program of study if the individual meets the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, is accepted into the 
Talent Search project by the end of the first term of the tenth grade, 
is enrolled or is preparing to enroll in a rigorous secondary school 
program of study, as defined by his or her State of residence, and is 
designated as enrolled in a rigorous secondary school program of study 
on reports submitted by the grantee to the Secretary.
* * * * *
    35. Section 643.4 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  643.4  What services does a project provide?

    (a) A Talent Search project must provide the following services:
    (1) Connections for participants to high quality academic tutoring 
services to enable the participants to complete secondary or 
postsecondary courses.
    (2) Advice and assistance in secondary school course selection and, 
if applicable, initial postsecondary course selection.
    (3) Assistance in preparing for college entrance examinations and 
completing college admission applications.
    (4)(i) Information on the full range of Federal student financial 
aid programs and benefits (including Federal Pell Grant awards and loan 
forgiveness) and on resources for locating public and private 
scholarships; and
    (ii) Assistance in completing financial aid applications, including 
the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).
    (5) Guidance on and assistance in--
    (i) Secondary school reentry;
    (ii) Alternative education programs for secondary school dropouts 
that lead to the receipt of a regular secondary school diploma;
    (iii) Entry into general educational development (GED) programs; or
    (iv) Entry into postsecondary education.
    (6) Connections for participants to education or counseling 
services designed to improve the financial literacy and economic 
literacy of the participants or the participants' parents, including 
financial planning for postsecondary education.
    (b) A Talent Search project may provide services such as the 
following:
    (1) Academic tutoring, which may include instruction in reading, 
writing, study skills, mathematics, science, and other subjects.
    (2) Personal and career counseling or activities.
    (3) Information and activities designed to acquaint youth with the 
range of career options available to the youth.
    (4) Exposure to the campuses of institutions of higher education, 
as well as to cultural events, academic programs, and other sites or 
activities not usually available to disadvantaged youth.
    (5) Workshops and counseling for families of participants served.
    (6) Mentoring programs involving elementary or secondary school 
teachers or counselors, faculty members at institutions of higher 
education, students, or any combination of these persons.
    (7) Programs and activities as described in this section that are 
specially designed for participants who are limited English proficient, 
from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary 
education, individuals with disabilities, homeless children and youths, 
foster care youth, or other disconnected participants.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-12)


    36. Section 643.5 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  643.5  How long is a project period?

    A project period under the Talent Search program is five years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)


    37. Section 643.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  643.6  What regulations apply?

* * * * *
    (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations 
(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec.  75.215-75.221), 
77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
    38. Section 643.7(b) is amended by:
    A. Revising the definition of ``Institution of higher education''.
    B. Revising the definition of ``Veteran''.
    C. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for ``Different 
population'', ``Financial and economic literacy'', ``Foster care 
youth'', ``Homeless children and youth'', ``Individuals with 
disabilities'', ``Regular secondary school diploma'', and ``Rigorous 
secondary school diploma''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  643.7  What definitions apply?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Different population means a group of individuals that an eligible 
entity desires to serve through an application for a grant under the 
Talent Search program and that--
    (1) Is separate and distinct from any other population that the 
entity has applied for a grant to serve; or
    (2) While sharing some of the same needs as another population that 
the eligible entity has applied for a grant to serve, has distinct 
needs for specialized services.
    Financial and economic literacy means knowledge about personal 
financial decision-making, including but not limited to knowledge 
about--
    (1) Personal and family budget planning;
    (2) Understanding credit building principles to meet long-term and 
short-term goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit scoring, negative 
impacts on credit scores);
    (3) Cost planning for postsecondary education (e.g., spending, 
saving, personal budgeting);
    (4) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition 
vs. fees, personal costs);
    (5) Scholarship, grant, and loan education (e.g., searches, 
application processes, and differences between private and government 
loans); and
    (6) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal 
Student Aid (FAFSA).
    Foster care youth means youth who are in foster care or are aging 
out of the foster care system. * * *
    Homeless children and youth means persons defined in section 725 of 
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434(a)).
    Individual with disabilities means a person who has a diagnosed 
physical or mental impairment that substantially

[[Page 13882]]

limits that person's ability to participate in educational experiences 
and opportunities.
    Institution of higher education means an educational institution as 
defined in sections 101 and 102 of the HEA. * * *
    Regular secondary school diploma means a level attained by 
individuals who meet or exceed the coursework and performance standards 
for high school completion established by the individual's State.
    Rigorous secondary school program of study means a program of study 
that is--
    (1) Established by a State educational agency (SEA) or local 
educational agency (LEA) and recognized as a rigorous secondary school 
program of study by the Secretary through the process described in 34 
CFR Sec.  691.16(a) through Sec.  691.16(c) for the ACG Program;
    (2) An advanced or honors secondary school program established by 
States and in existence for the 2004-2005 school year or later school 
years;
    (3) Any secondary school program in which a student successfully 
completes at a minimum the following courses:
    (i) Four years of English.
    (ii) Three years of mathematics, including algebra I and a higher-
level class such as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and 
statistics.
    (iii) Three years of science, including one year each of at least 
two of the following courses: biology, chemistry, and physics.
    (iv) Three years of social studies.
    (v) One year of a language other than English;
    (4) A secondary school program identified by a State-level 
partnership that is recognized by the State Scholars Initiative of the 
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), Boulder, 
Colorado;
    (5) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at 
least two courses from an International Baccalaureate Diploma Program 
sponsored by the International Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva, 
Switzerland, and receives a score of a ``4'' or higher on the 
examinations for at least two of those courses; or
    (6) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at 
least two Advanced Placement courses and receives a score of ``3'' or 
higher on the College Board's Advanced Placement Program Exams for at 
least two of those courses. * * *
    Veteran means a person who--
    (1) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 
United States for a period of more than 180 days and was discharged or 
released under conditions other than dishonorable;
    (2) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 
United States and was discharged or released because of a service 
connected disability;
    (3) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 
United States and was called to active duty for a period of more than 
30 days; or
    (4) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 
United States who served on active duty in support of a contingency 
operation (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, 
United States Code) on or after September 11, 2001.
* * * * *

Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?

    39. Subpart B of part 643 is amended by revising the subpart 
heading to read as set forth above.


Sec.  643.10  [Redesignated as Sec.  643.11]

    39a. Redesignate Sec.  643.10 as Sec.  643.11.
    40. A new Sec.  643.10 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  643.10  How many applications may an eligible applicant submit?

    (a) An applicant may submit more than one application for Talent 
Search grants as long as each application describes a project that 
serves a different target area or target schools, or another designated 
different population.
    (b) For each grant competition, the Secretary designates, in the 
Federal Register notice inviting applications and the other published 
application materials for the competition, the different populations 
for which an eligible entity may submit a separate application.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-12; 1221e-3)


    41. Newly redesignated Sec.  643.11 is amended by:
    A. In the introductory text, removing the word ``shall'' and 
adding, in its place, the word ``must''.
    B. In paragraph (a), adding the words ``, and at least two-thirds 
of the participants selected to receive support for a rigorous 
secondary school program of study,'' after the words ``Talent Search 
project''.
    C. Revising paragraph (b). The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  643.11  What assurances must an applicant submit?

* * * * *
    (b) Individuals who are receiving services from another Talent 
Search project; a Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for 
Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) project under 34 CFR part 694; a 
Regular Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math and Science Centers, or 
Veterans Upward Bound project under 34 CFR part 645; an Educational 
Opportunity Centers project under 34 CFR part 644; or other programs 
serving similar populations will not receive the same services under 
the proposed project.
* * * * *
    42. Section 643.20 is amended by:
    A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the words ``in delivering 
services'' and adding, in their place, the words ``of high quality 
service delivery (PE)''.
    B. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding the word ``total'' after the 
word ``maximum'' the first time it appears.
    C. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).
    D. Removing paragraph (a)(3).
    E. In paragraph (b), removing the words ``through (3)'' and adding, 
in their place, the words ``and (a)(2)''.
    F. Revising paragraph (d).
    The additions and revision read as follows:


Sec.  643.20  How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make?

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) The Secretary evaluates the PE of an applicant for each of 
the three project years that the Secretary designates in the Federal 
Register notice inviting applications and the other published 
application materials for the competition.
    (iv) An applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the 
designated project years for which annual performance report data are 
available.
    (v) The final PE score is the average of the scores for the three 
project years assessed. * * *
    (d) The Secretary does not make a new grant to an applicant if the 
applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.
* * * * *
    43. Section 643.21 is amended by:
    A. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).
    B. Revising paragraph (d)(2).
    C. In the OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (g), 
removing the numbers ``1840-0549'' and adding, in their place, the 
numbers ``1840-0065''.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  643.21  What selection criteria does the Secretary use?

* * * * *
    (a) Need for the project (24 points). The Secretary evaluates the 
need for a Talent Search project in the proposed target area on the 
basis of the extent to

[[Page 13883]]

which the application contains clear evidence of the following:
    (1) (6 points) A high number or high percentage of the following--
    (i) Low-income families residing in the target area; or
    (ii) Students attending the target schools who are eligible for 
free or reduced priced lunch as described in sections 9(b)(1) and 
17(c)(4) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
    (2) (2 points) Low rates of high school persistence among 
individuals in the target schools as evidenced by the annual student 
persistence rates in the proposed target schools for the most recent 
year for which data are available.
    (3) (4 points) Low rates of students in the target school's 
graduating high school with a regular secondary school diploma in the 
standard number of years for the most recent year for which data are 
available.
    (4) (6 points) Low postsecondary enrollment and completion rates 
among individuals in the target area and schools as evidenced by--
    (i) Low rates of enrollment in programs of postsecondary education 
by graduates of the target schools in the most recent year for which 
data are available; and
    (ii) A high number or high percentage of individuals residing in 
the target area with education completion levels below the 
baccalaureate degree level.
    (5) (2 points) The extent to which the target secondary schools do 
not offer their students the courses or academic support to complete a 
rigorous secondary school program of study or have low participation by 
low-income or first generation students in such courses.
    (6) (4 points) Other indicators of need for a Talent Search 
project, including a high ratio of students to school counselors in the 
target schools and the presence of unaddressed academic or socio-
economic problems of eligible individuals, including foster care youth 
and homeless children and youth, in the target schools or the target 
area.
    (b) Objectives (8 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of 
the applicant's objectives and proposed targets (percentages) in the 
following areas on the basis of the extent to which they are both 
ambitious, as related to the Need data provided under paragraph (a) of 
this section, and attainable, given the project's plan of operation, 
budget, and other resources:
    (1) (2 points) Secondary school persistence.
    (2) (2 points) Secondary school graduation (regular secondary 
school diploma).
    (3) (1 point) Secondary school graduation (rigorous secondary 
school program of study).
    (4) (2 points) Postsecondary education enrollment.
    (5) (1 point) Postsecondary degree attainment.
    (c) Plan of operation (30 points). The Secretary evaluates the 
quality of the applicant's plan of operation on the basis of the 
following:
    (1) (3 points) The plan to inform the residents, schools, and 
community organizations in the target area of the purpose, objectives, 
and services of the project and the eligibility requirements for 
participation in the project.
    (2) (3 points) The plan to identify and select eligible project 
participants, including the project's plan and criteria for selecting 
individuals who would receive support to complete a rigorous secondary 
school program of study.
    (3) (10 points) The plan for providing the services delineated in 
Sec.  643.4 as appropriate based on the project's assessment of each 
participant's need for services.
    (4) (6 points) For those students in need of services to complete a 
rigorous secondary school program of study, the project's plan to 
provide services sufficient to enable the participants to succeed.
    (5) (6 points) The plan, including timelines, personnel, and other 
resources, to ensure the proper and efficient administration of the 
project, including the project's organizational structure; the time 
commitment of key project staff; financial, personnel, and records 
management; and, where appropriate, coordination with other programs 
for disadvantaged youth.
    (6) (2 points) The plan to follow former participants as they 
enter, continue in, and complete postsecondary education.
    (d) * * *
    (2) (8 points) Resources secured through written commitments from 
institutions of higher education, secondary schools, community 
organizations, and others.
* * * * *
    44. Section 643.22 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  643.22  How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?

    (a) In the case of an application described in Sec.  
643.20(a)(2)(i), the Secretary--
    (1) Evaluates the applicant's performance under its expiring Talent 
Search project;
    (2) Uses the approved project objectives for the applicant's 
expiring Talent Search grant and the information the applicant 
submitted in its annual performance reports (APRs) to determine the 
number of PE points; and
    (3) May adjust a calculated PE score or decide not to award PE 
points if other information such as audit reports, site visit reports, 
and project evaluation reports indicates the APR data used to calculate 
PE are incorrect.
    (b) The Secretary does not award PE points for a given year to an 
applicant that does not serve at least 90 percent of the approved 
number of participants. For purposes of this section, the approved 
number of participants is the total number of participants the project 
would serve as agreed upon by the grantee and the Secretary.
    (c) For the criterion specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section 
(Number of participants), the Secretary does not award any PE points if 
the applicant did not serve the approved number of participants.
    (d) For purposes of the evaluation of grants awarded after January 
1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the basis of the 
following outcome criteria:
    (1) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant 
provided services to the approved number of participants.
    (2) (3 points) Secondary school persistence. Whether the applicant 
met or exceeded its objective regarding the continued secondary school 
enrollment of participants.
    (3) (3 points) Secondary school graduation (regular secondary 
school diploma). Whether the applicant met or exceeded its objective 
regarding the graduation of current and prior participants from 
secondary school with a regular secondary school diploma in the 
standard number of years.
    (4) (1.5 points) Secondary school graduation (rigorous secondary 
school program of study). Whether the applicant met or exceeded its 
objective regarding the percentage of current and prior participants 
with an expected high school graduation date in the school year who 
were enrolled in and completed a rigorous secondary school program of 
study.
    (5) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment. Whether the applicant met 
or exceeded its objective regarding the percentage of current and prior 
participants with an expected high school graduation date in the school 
year who enrolled in an institution of higher education by the fall 
term immediately following the school year.
    (6) (1.5 points) Postsecondary completion. Whether the applicant 
met or exceeded its objective regarding the completion of a program of 
postsecondary education within the

[[Page 13884]]

number of years specified in the approved objective. The applicant may 
determine success in meeting the objective by using a randomly selected 
sample of participants in accordance with the parameters established by 
the Secretary in the Federal Register notice inviting applications or 
other published application materials for the competition.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW7.)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-12)

Sec.  643.23  [Amended]

    45. Section 643.23 is amended by:
    A. In the introductory text of paragraph (b), removing the words 
``beginning in fiscal year 1994''.
    B. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the amount ``$180,000'' and 
adding, in its place, the amount ``$200,000''.
    46. A new Sec.  643.24 is added to subpart C of part 643 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  643.24  What is the review process for unsuccessful applicants?

    (a) Technical or administrative error for applications not 
reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated 
during the competition may request that the Secretary review the 
application if--
    (i) The applicant has met all application submission requirements 
included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications and the 
other published application materials for the competition; and
    (ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 
Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or 
administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.
    (2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an 
application includes--
    (i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of 
applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures 
included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the 
competition;
    (ii) An error in determining an applicant's eligibility for funding 
consideration, which may include, but is not limited to--
    (A) An incorrect conclusion that the application was submitted by 
an ineligible applicant;
    (B) An incorrect conclusion that the application exceeded the 
published page limit;
    (C) An incorrect conclusion that the applicant requested funding 
greater than the published maximum award; or
    (D) An incorrect conclusion that the application was missing 
critical sections of the application; and
    (iii) Any other mishandling of the application that resulted in an 
otherwise eligible application not being reviewed during the 
competition.
    (3)(i) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 
Department's agent made a technical or administrative error, the 
Secretary has the application evaluated and scored.
    (ii) If the total score assigned the application would have 
resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the 
program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior 
to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of 
applications described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Administrative or scoring error for applications that were 
reviewed. (1) An applicant that was not selected for funding during a 
competition may request that the Secretary conduct a second review of 
the application if--
    (i) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 
Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made an 
administrative or scoring error in the review of its application; and
    (ii) The final score assigned to the application is within the 
funding band described in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) An administrative error relates to either the PE points or the 
scores assigned to the application by the peer reviewers.
    (i) For PE points, an administrative error includes mathematical 
errors made by the Department or the Department's agent in the 
calculation of the PE points or a failure to correctly add the earned 
PE points to the peer reviewer score.
    (ii) For the peer review score, an administrative error is applying 
the wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.
    (3)(i) A scoring error relates only to the peer review process and 
includes errors caused by a reviewer who, in assigning points--
    (A) Uses criteria not required by the applicable law or program 
regulations, the Federal Register notice inviting applications, the 
other published application materials for the competition, or guidance 
provided to the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or
    (B) Does not consider relevant information included in the 
appropriate section of the application.
    (ii) The term ``scoring error'' does not include--
    (A) A peer reviewer's appropriate use of his or her professional 
judgment in evaluating and scoring an application;
    (B) Any situation in which the applicant did not include 
information needed to evaluate its response to a specific selection 
criterion in the appropriate section of the application as stipulated 
in the Federal Register notice inviting applications or the other 
published application materials for the competition; or
    (C) Any error by the applicant.
    (c) Procedures for the second review. (1) To ensure the timely 
awarding of grants under the competition, the Secretary sets aside a 
percentage of the funds allotted for the competition to be awarded 
after the second review is completed.
    (2) After the competition, the Secretary makes new awards in rank 
order as described in Sec.  643.20 based on the available funds for the 
competition minus the funds set aside for the second review.
    (3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to 
successful applicants, the Secretary notifies each unsuccessful 
applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the 
funding band for the second review and provides copies of the peer 
reviewers' evaluations of the applicant's application and the 
applicant's PE score, if applicable.
    (4) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the 
competition as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 
application received a score within the funding band as described in 
paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second review if the 
applicant demonstrates that the Department, the Department's agent, or 
a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error as discussed in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first 
review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 
application received a score within the funding band as described in 
paragraph (d) of this section has 15 calendar days after receiving 
notification that its application was not funded in which to submit a 
written request for a second review in accordance with the instructions 
and due date provided in the Secretary's written notification.
    (6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be 
received by the Department or submitted electronically to the 
designated e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established 
by the Secretary.
    (7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 
Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE 
points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, 
the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct 
number of PE

[[Page 13885]]

points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application would have 
resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the 
program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior 
to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of 
applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
    (8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the 
Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error 
that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer 
reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score 
assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the 
application during the competition and the program has funds available, 
the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of 
applications based on the second peer review of applications described 
in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
    (9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring 
error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary 
convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the 
requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
    (10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer 
review are used in the second ranking of applications. The average 
score obtained from the second peer review panel is the final peer 
reviewer score for the application and will be used even if the second 
review results in a lower score for the application than that obtained 
in the initial review.
    (11) For applications in the funding band, the Secretary funds 
these applications in rank order based on adjusted scores and the 
available funds that have been set aside for the second review of 
applications.
    (d) Process for establishing a funding band. (1) For each 
competition, the Secretary establishes a funding band for the second 
review of applications.
    (2) The Secretary establishes the funding band for each competition 
based on the amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second 
review of applications.
    (3) The funding band is composed of those applications--
    (i) With a rank-order score before the second review that is below 
the lowest score of applications funded after the first review; and
    (ii) That would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the 
funds that were set aside for the second review of applications for the 
competition.
    (e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary's determination of whether 
the applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the 
Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application are final and not 
subject to further appeal or challenge.
    (2) An application that scored below the established funding band 
for the competition is not eligible for a second review.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW2.)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)


    47. Section 643.30 is amended by:
    A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``34 CFR part 74, 
subpart Q'' and adding, in their place, the words ``34 CFR 74.27, 
75.530, and 80.22, as applicable''.
    B. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), adding the word 
``project'' before the word ``staff''.
    C. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the words ``to obtain information 
relating to the admission of participants to those institutions''.
    D. In paragraph (a)(2), removing the word ``and''.
    E. In paragraph (a)(3)by adding the words ``for participants'' 
after the word ``trips''; removing the words ``in the target area''; 
and removing the punctuation ``.'' at the end of the paragraph and 
adding, in its place, the words ``; and''.
    F. Adding a new paragraph (a)(4).
    G. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``and test preparation 
programs for participants'' after the word ``materials''.
    H. Revising paragraph (f).
    I. Adding new paragraphs (g) and (h).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  643.30  What are allowable costs?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) Transportation to institutions of higher education, secondary 
schools not attended by the participants, or other locations at which 
the participant receives instruction that is part of a rigorous 
secondary school program of study.
* * * * *
    (f) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware, software, and 
other equipment and supplies that support the delivery of services to 
participants, including technology used by participants in a rigorous 
secondary school program of study.
    (g) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer equipment and software 
needed for project administration and recordkeeping.
    (h) Tuition costs for a course that is part of a rigorous secondary 
school program of study if--
    (1) The course or a similar course is not offered at the secondary 
school that the participant attends or at another school within the 
school district;
    (2) The grantee demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction that 
using grant funds is the most cost-effective way to deliver the course 
or courses necessary for the completion of a rigorous secondary school 
program of study for program participants;
    (3) The course is taken at an institution of higher education;
    (4) The course is comparable in content and rigor to courses that 
are part of a rigorous secondary school program of study as defined in 
Sec.  643.7(b);
    (5) The secondary school accepts the course as meeting one or more 
of the course requirements for obtaining a high school diploma;
    (6) A waiver of the tuition costs is unavailable;
    (7) The tuition is paid with Talent Search grant funds to an 
institution of higher education on behalf of a participant; and
    (8) The Talent Search project pays for no more than the equivalent 
of two courses for a participant each school year.
* * * * *
    48. Section 643.31 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing the 
phrase ``Tuition, stipends,'' and by adding ``Stipends'' in its place.
    49. Section 643.32 is amended by:
    A. Removing paragraph (b).
    B. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).
    C. In newly redesignated paragraph (b) introductory text, removing 
the word ``shall'' and adding, in its place, the word ``must''.
    D. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(3), removing the word 
``and''.
    E. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(4), removing the punctuation 
``.'' and adding, in its place, the words ``; and''.
    F. Adding a new paragraph (b)(5).
    G. Adding a new paragraph (c).
    H. Removing paragraph (d).
    I. In the OMB control number parenthetical following newly added 
paragraph (c), removing the numbers ``1840-0549'' and adding, in their 
place, the numbers ``1840-NEW2''.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  643.32  What other requirements must a grantee meet?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) A list of courses taken by participants receiving support to 
complete a rigorous secondary school

[[Page 13886]]

program of study as defined in Sec.  643.7(b).
    (c) Project director. (1) A grantee must employ a full-time project 
director unless--
    (i) The director is also administering one or two additional 
programs for disadvantaged students operated by the sponsoring 
institution or agency; or
    (ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of this requirement.
    (2) The grantee must give the project director sufficient authority 
to administer the project effectively.
    (3) The Secretary waives the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section if the applicant demonstrates that the requirement to 
administer no more than three programs will hinder effective 
coordination between the Talent Search program and--
    (i) One or more Federal TRIO programs (sections 402A through 402F 
of the HEA); or
    (ii) One or more similar programs funded through other sources.
* * * * *

PART 644--EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY CENTERS

    50. The authority citation for part 644 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-16, unless otherwise 
noted.

    51. Section 644.1 is amended by:
    A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``to provide''.
    B. In paragraph (a), removing the word ``Information'' and adding, 
in its place, the words ``To provide information''; removing the word 
``for'' and adding, in its place, the word ``to''; and removing the 
word ``and'' that appears after the punctuation ``;''.
    C. In paragraph (b), removing the word ``Assistance'' and adding, 
in its place, the words ``To provide assistance''; and removing the 
punctuation ``.'' at the end of the sentence and adding, in its place, 
the word ``; and''.
    D. Adding a new paragraph (c).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  644.1  What is the Educational Opportunity Centers program?

* * * * *
    (c) To improve the financial literacy and economic literacy of 
participants on topics such as--
    (1) Basic personal income, household money management, and 
financial planning skills; and
    (2) Basic economic decision-making skills.
* * * * *
    52. Section 644.2 is amended by:
    A. In the introductory text of the section, adding the word 
``entities'' after the word ``following''.
    B. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``, including a community-
based organization with experience in serving disadvantaged youth'' 
after the word ``organization''.
    C. Removing paragraph (d).
    D. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d).
    E. Adding a new paragraph (c).
    F. In newly redesignated paragraph (d), removing the word ``and'' 
before the citation ``(b)'' and adding, in its place, the punctuation 
``,''; and adding the words ``, and (c)'' after the citation ``(b)''.
    The addition reads as follows:
* * * * *


Sec.  644.2  Who is eligible for a grant?

* * * * *
    (c) A secondary school.
* * * * *
    53. Section 644.4 is amended by:
    A. Redesignating paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) 
as paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l), respectively.
    B. Adding a new paragraph (e).
    C. In newly redesignated paragraph (g), removing the word 
``Personal'' and adding, in its place, the words ``Individualized 
personal, career, and academic''.
    D. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (k).
    The addition and revision read as follows:


Sec.  644.4  What services may a project provide?

* * * * *
    (e) Education or counseling services designed to improve the 
financial literacy and economic literacy of participants.
* * * * *
    (k) Programs and activities described in this section that are 
specially designed for participants who are limited English proficient, 
participants from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in 
postsecondary education, participants who are individuals with 
disabilities, participants who are homeless children and youth, 
participants who are foster care youth, or other disconnected 
participants.
* * * * *
    54. Section 644.5 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  644.5  How long is a project period?

    A project period under the Educational Opportunity Centers program 
is five years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)


    55. Section 644.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  644.6  What regulations apply?

* * * * *
    (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations 
(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec.  75.215 through 
75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
    56. Section 644.7(b) is amended by:
    A. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for Different 
population, Financial and economic literacy, Foster care youth, 
Homeless children and youth, and Individual with disabilities.
    B. Revising the definition of Institution of higher education.
    C. Revising the definition of Veteran.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  644.7  What definitions apply?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Different population means a group of individuals that an eligible 
entity desires to serve through an application for a grant under the 
Educational Opportunity Centers program and that--
    (i) Is separate and distinct from any other population that the 
entity has applied for a grant under this chapter to serve; or
    (ii) While sharing some of the same needs as another population 
that the eligible entity has applied for a grant to serve, has distinct 
needs for specialized services.
    Financial and economic literacy means knowledge about personal 
financial decision-making, including but not limited to knowledge 
about--
    (i) Personal and family budget planning;
    (ii) Understanding credit building principles to meet long-term and 
short-term goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit scoring, negative 
impacts on credit scores);
    (iii) Cost planning for postsecondary education (e.g., spending, 
saving, personal budgeting);
    (iv) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition 
vs. fees, personal costs);
    (v) Scholarship, grant, and loan education (e.g., searches, 
application processes, and differences between private and government 
loans); and
    (vi) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal 
Student Aid (FAFSA).
    Foster care youth means youth who are in foster care or are aging 
out of the foster care system.
* * * * *
    Homeless children and youth means those persons defined in section 
725 of

[[Page 13887]]

the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434(a)).
    Individual with disabilities means a person who has a diagnosed 
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits that person's 
ability to participate in educational experiences and opportunities.
    Institution of higher education means an educational institution as 
defined in sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.
* * * * *
    Veteran means a person who--
    (i) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 
United States for a period of more than 180 days and was discharged or 
released under conditions other than dishonorable;
    (ii) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 
United States and was discharged or released because of a service 
connected disability;
    (iii) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of 
the United States and was called to active duty for a period of more 
than 30 days; or
    (iv) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 
United States who served on active duty in support of a contingency 
operation (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, 
United States Code) on or after September 11, 2001.
* * * * *

Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?

    57. The heading for subpart B of part 644 is revised to read as set 
forth above.


Sec.  644.10  [Redesignated as Sec.  644.11]

    58. In subpart B of part 644, Sec.  644.10 is redesignated as Sec.  
644.11.
    59. A new Sec.  644.10 is added to subpart B of part 644 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  644.10  How many applications may an eligible applicant submit?

    (a) An applicant may submit more than one application for 
Educational Opportunity Centers grants as long as each application 
describes a project that serves a different target area or another 
designated different population.
    (b) For each grant competition, the Secretary designates, in the 
Federal Register notice inviting applications and other published 
application materials for the competition, the different populations 
for which an eligible entity may submit a separate application.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11, 1221e-3)


    60. Newly redesignated Sec.  644.11 is amended by:
    A. In the introductory text, removing the word ``shall'' and 
adding, in its place, the word ``must''.
    B. Revising paragraph (b).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  644.11  What assurances must an applicant submit?

* * * * *
    (b) Individuals who are receiving services from another Educational 
Opportunity Center project under this part, a Veterans Upward Bound 
project under 34 CFR part 645, a Talent Search project under 34 CFR 
part 643, or other programs serving similar populations will not 
receive the same services under the proposed project.
* * * * *
    61. Section 644.20 is amended by:
    A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the words ``in delivering 
services'' and adding, in their place, the words ``of high quality 
service delivery (PE)''.
    B. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding the word ``total'' after the 
word ``maximum'' the first time it appears.
    C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).
    D. Removing paragraph (a)(3).
    E. In paragraph (b), removing the words ``paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(3)'' and adding, in their place, the words ``paragraph (a)''.
    F. Revising paragraph (d).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  644.20  How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make?

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) The Secretary evaluates the PE of an applicant for each of 
the three project years that the Secretary designates in the Federal 
Register notice inviting applications and the other published 
application materials for the competition.
    (iv) An applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the 
designated project years for which annual performance report data are 
available.
    (v) The final PE score is the average of the scores for the three 
project years assessed.
* * * * *
    (d) The Secretary does not make a new grant to an applicant if the 
applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.
* * * * *
    62. Section 644.21 is amended by:
    A. Revising paragraph (b).
    B. In paragraph (d)(2), adding the words ``of support'' after the 
word ``commitments''; and adding the words ``institutions of higher 
education, secondary'' before the word ``schools''.
    C. In the OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (g), 
removing the numbers ``1840-0065'' and adding, in their place, the 
numbers ``1840-NEW3''.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  644.21  What selection criteria does the Secretary use?

* * * * *
    (b) Objectives (8 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of 
the applicant's objectives and proposed targets (percentages) in the 
following areas on the basis of the extent to which they are both 
ambitious, as related to the need data provided under paragraph (a) of 
this section, and attainable, given the project's plan of operation, 
budget, and other resources:
    (1) (2 points) Enrollment of participants who do not have a 
secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent in programs 
leading to a secondary school diploma or its equivalent.
    (2) (4 points) Postsecondary enrollment.
    (3) (1 point) Student financial aid assistance.
    (4) (1 point) Student college admission assistance.
* * * * *
    63. Section 644.22 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  644.22  How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?

    (a) In the case of an application described in Sec.  
644.20(a)(2)(i), the Secretary--
    (1) Evaluates the applicant's performance under its expiring 
Educational Opportunity Centers project;
    (2) Uses the approved project objectives for the applicant's 
expiring Educational Opportunity Centers grant and the information the 
applicant submitted in its annual performance reports (APRs) to 
determine the number of PE points; and
    (3) May adjust a calculated PE score or decide not to award PE 
points if other information such as audit reports, site visit reports, 
and project evaluation reports indicates the APR data used to calculate 
PE points are incorrect.
    (b) The Secretary does not award PE points for a given year to an 
applicant that does not serve at least 90 percent of the approved 
number of participants. For purposes of this section, the approved 
number of participants is the total number of participants the project 
would serve as agreed upon by the grantee and the Secretary.
    (c) For the criterion specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section 
(Number

[[Page 13888]]

of participants), the Secretary does not award PE points if the 
applicant did not serve the approved number of participants.
    (d) For purposes of the PE evaluation of grants awarded after 
January 1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the 
basis of the following outcome criteria:
    (1) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant 
provided services to the approved number of participants.
    (2) (3 points) Secondary school diploma. Whether the applicant met 
or exceeded its approved objective with regard to participants who do 
not have a secondary school diploma or its equivalent who enroll in 
programs leading to a secondary school diploma or its equivalent.
    (3) (6 points) Postsecondary enrollment. Whether the applicant met 
or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the secondary school 
graduates who enroll in programs of postsecondary education during the 
project year by the fall term immediately following the school year.
    (4) (1.5 points) Financial aid assistance. Whether the applicant 
met or exceeded its objective regarding assistance to individuals in 
completing financial aid applications.
    (5) (1.5 points) College admission assistance. Whether the 
applicant met or exceeded its objective regarding assistance to 
individuals in completing applications for college admission.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW8.)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-16)


    64. Section 644.23 is amended by:
    A. In the introductory text of paragraph (b), removing the words 
``beginning in fiscal year 1994''.
    B. Revising paragraph (b)(1).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  644.23  How does the Secretary set the amount of a grant?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) $200,000; or
* * * * *
    65. Section 644.24 is added to subpart C of part 644 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  644.24  What is the review process for unsuccessful applicants?

    (a) Technical or administrative error for applications not 
reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated 
during the competition may request that the Secretary review the 
application if--
    (i) The applicant has met all of the application submission 
requirements included in the Federal Register notice inviting 
applications and the other published application materials for the 
competition; and
    (ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 
Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or 
administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.
    (2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an 
application includes--
    (i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of 
applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures 
included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the 
competition;
    (ii) An error in determining an applicant's eligibility for funding 
consideration, which may include, but is not limited to--
    (A) An incorrect conclusion that the application was submitted by 
an ineligible applicant;
    (B) An incorrect conclusion that the application exceeded the 
published page limit;
    (C) An incorrect conclusion that the applicant requested funding 
greater than the published maximum award; or
    (D) An incorrect conclusion that the application was missing 
critical sections of the application; and
    (iii) Any other mishandling of the application that resulted in an 
otherwise eligible application not being reviewed during the 
competition.
    (3)(i) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 
Department's agent made a technical or administrative error, the 
Secretary has the application evaluated and scored.
    (ii) If the total score assigned the application would have 
resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the 
program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior 
to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of 
applications described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Administrative or scoring error for applications that were 
reviewed. (1) An applicant that was not selected for funding during a 
competition may request that the Secretary conduct a second review of 
the application if--
    (i) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 
Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made an 
administrative or scoring error in the review of its application; and
    (ii) The final score assigned to the application is within the 
funding band described in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) An administrative error relates to either the PE points or the 
scores assigned to the application by the peer reviewers.
    (i) For PE points, an administrative error includes mathematical 
errors made by the Department or the Department's agent in the 
calculation of the PE points or a failure to correctly add the earned 
PE points to the peer reviewer score.
    (ii) For the peer review score, an administrative error is applying 
the wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.
    (3)(i) A scoring error relates only to the peer review process and 
includes errors caused by a reviewer who, in assigning points--
    (A) Uses criteria not required by the applicable law or program 
regulations, the Federal Register notice inviting applications, the 
other published application materials for the competition, or guidance 
provided to the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or
    (B) Does not consider relevant information included in the 
appropriate section of the application.
    (ii) The term ``scoring error'' does not include--
    (A) A peer reviewer's appropriate use of his or her professional 
judgment in evaluating and scoring an application;
    (B) Any situation in which the applicant did not include 
information needed to evaluate its response to a specific selection 
criterion in the appropriate section of the application as stipulated 
in the Federal Register notice inviting applications or the other 
published application materials for the competition; or
    (C) Any error by the applicant.
    (c) Procedures for the second review. (1) To ensure the timely 
awarding of grants under the competition, the Secretary sets aside a 
percentage of the funds allotted for the competition to be awarded 
after the second review is completed.
    (2) After the competition, the Secretary makes new awards in rank 
order as described in Sec.  644.20 based on the available funds for the 
competition minus the funds set aside for the second review.
    (3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to 
successful applicants, the Secretary notifies each unsuccessful 
applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the 
funding band for the second review and provides copies of the peer 
reviewers' evaluations of the applicant's application and the 
applicant's PE score, if applicable.
    (4) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the 
competition as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 
application received a score within the funding band as

[[Page 13889]]

described in paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second review 
if the applicant demonstrates that the Department, the Department's 
agent, or a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error as 
discussed in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first 
review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 
application received a score within the funding band as described in 
paragraph (d) of this section has 15 calendar days after receiving 
notification that its application was not funded in which to submit a 
written request for a second review in accordance with the instructions 
and due date provided in the Secretary's written notification.
    (6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be 
received by the Department or submitted electronically to the 
designated e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established 
by the Secretary.
    (7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 
Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE 
points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, 
the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct 
number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application 
would have resulted in funding of the application during the 
competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds 
the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the 
second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of 
this section.
    (8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the 
Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error 
that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer 
reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score 
assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the 
application during the competition and the program has funds available, 
the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of 
applications based on the second peer review of applications described 
in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
    (9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring 
error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary 
convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the 
requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
    (10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer 
review are used in the second ranking of applications. The average 
score obtained from the second peer review panel is the final peer 
reviewer score for the application and will be used even if the second 
review results in a lower score for the application than that obtained 
in the initial review.
    (11) For applications in the funding band, the Secretary funds 
these applications in rank order based on adjusted scores and the 
available funds that have been set aside for the second review of 
applications.
    (d) Process for establishing a funding band. (1) For each 
competition, the Secretary establishes a funding band for the second 
review of applications.
    (2) The Secretary establishes the funding band for each competition 
based on the amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second 
review of applications.
    (3) The funding band is composed of those applications--
    (i) With a rank-order score before the second review that is below 
the lowest score of applications funded after the first review; and
    (ii) That would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the 
funds that were set aside for the second review of applications for the 
competition.
    (e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary's determination of whether 
the applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the 
Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application are final and not 
subject to further appeal or challenge.
    (2) An application that scored below the established funding band 
for the competition is not eligible for a second review.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW3)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)


    66. Section 644.30 is amended by:
    A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``34 CFR part 74, 
subpart Q'' and adding, in their place, the words ``34 CFR 74.27, 
75.530, and 80.22, as applicable''.
    B. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), adding the word 
``project'' before the word ``staff''.
    C. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the words ``to obtain information 
relating to the admission of participants to those institutions''.
    D. Revising paragraph (a)(3).
    E. In paragraph (b), adding the words ``and test preparation 
programs for participants'' after the word ``materials''.
    F. Revising paragraph (f).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  644.30  What are allowable costs?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) Field trips for participants to observe and meet with persons 
who are employed in various career fields and can act as role models 
for participants.
* * * * *
    (f) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware, computer 
software, or other equipment for participant development, project 
administration, or project recordkeeping.
* * * * *
    67. Section 644.32 is amended by:
    A. Removing paragraphs (b) and (d).
    B. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).
    C. Adding a new paragraph (c).
    D. In the OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (b), 
removing the numbers ``1840-0065'' and adding, in their place, the 
numbers ``1840-NEW8''.
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  644.32  What other requirements must a grantee meet?

* * * * *
    (c) Project director. (1) A grantee must employ a full-time project 
director unless--
    (i) The director is also administering one or two additional 
programs for disadvantaged students operated by the sponsoring 
institution or agency; or
    (ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of this requirement.
    (2) The grantee must give the project director sufficient authority 
to administer the project effectively.
    (3) The Secretary waives the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section if the applicant demonstrates that the requirement to 
administer no more than three programs will hinder effective 
coordination between the Educational Opportunity Centers program and--
    (i) One or more Federal TRIO programs (sections 402A through 402F 
of the HEA); or
    (ii) One or more similar programs funded through other sources.
* * * * *

PART 645--UPWARD BOUND PROGRAM

    68. The authority citation for part 645 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-13, unless otherwise 
noted.

    69. Section 645.2 is amended by:
    A. In paragraph (a), removing the word ``Institutions'' and adding, 
in its place, the words ``An institution''.
    B. Revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d).
    The revisions read as follows:

[[Page 13890]]

Sec.  645.2  Who is eligible for a grant?

* * * * *
    (b) A public or private agency or organization, including a 
community-based organization with experience in serving disadvantaged 
youth.
    (c) A secondary school.
    (d) A combination of the types of institutions, agencies, and 
organizations described in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    70. Section 645.4 is amended by:
    A. Revising the section heading.
    B. Removing paragraph (a).
    C. Redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) as paragraphs (a), 
(b), and (c), respectively.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  645.4  What are the grantee requirements for documenting the low-
income and first-generation status of participants?

* * * * *
    71. Section 645.5 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  645.5  What regulations apply?

* * * * *
    (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations 
(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec.  75.215 through 
75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
    72. Section 645.6(b) is amended by:
    A. Revising the definition of Institution of higher education.
    B. Revising the definition of Veteran.
    C. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for Different 
population, Financial and economic literacy, Foster care youth, 
Homeless children and youth, Individual who has a high risk for 
academic failure, Individual with disabilities, Regular secondary 
school diploma, Rigorous secondary school program of study, and Veteran 
who has a high risk for academic failure.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  645.6  What definitions apply to the Upward Bound Program?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Different population means a group of individuals that an eligible 
entity desires to serve through an application for a grant under the 
Upward Bound program and that--
    (1) Is separate and distinct from any other population that the 
entity has applied for a grant to serve; or
    (2) While sharing some of the same needs as another population that 
the eligible entity has applied for a grant to serve, has distinct 
needs for specialized services.
* * * * *
    Financial and economic literacy means knowledge about personal 
financial decision-making, including but not limited to knowledge 
about--
    (1) Personal and family budget planning;
    (2) Understanding credit building principles to meet long-term and 
short-term goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit scoring, negative 
impacts on credit scores);
    (3) Cost planning for postsecondary education (e.g., spending, 
saving, personal budgeting);
    (4) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition 
vs. fees, personal costs);
    (5) Scholarship, grant, and loan education (e.g., searches, 
application processes, and differences between private and government 
loans); and
    (6) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal 
Student Aid (FAFSA).
    Foster care youth means youth who are in foster care or are aging 
out of the foster care system.
* * * * *
    Homeless children and youth means persons defined in section 725 of 
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434(a)).
    Individual who has a high risk for academic failure (regular Upward 
Bound participant) means an individual who--
    (1) Has not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments 
in reading or language arts;
    (2) Has not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments 
in math;
    (3) Has not completed pre-algebra, algebra, or geometry; or
    (4) Has a grade point average of 2.5 or less (on a 4.0 scale) for 
the most recent school year for which grade point averages are 
available.
    Individual with disabilities means a person who has a diagnosed 
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits that person's 
ability to participate in educational experiences and opportunities.
    Institution of higher education means an educational institution as 
defined in sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.
* * * * *
    Regular secondary school diploma means a diploma attained by 
individuals who meet or exceed the coursework and performance standards 
for high school completion established by the individual's State.
    Rigorous secondary school program of study means a program of study 
that is--
    (1) Established by a State educational agency (SEA) or local 
educational agency (LEA) and recognized as a rigorous secondary school 
program of study by the Secretary through the process described in 34 
CFR 691.16(a) through (c) for the ACG Program;
    (2) An advanced or honors secondary school program established by 
States and in existence for the 2004-2005 school year or later school 
years;
    (3) Any secondary school program in which a student successfully 
completes at a minimum the following courses:
    (i) Four years of English.
    (ii) Three years of mathematics, including algebra I and a higher-
level class such as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and 
statistics.
    (iii) Three years of science, including one year each of at least 
two of the following courses: biology, chemistry, and physics.
    (iv) Three years of social studies.
    (v) One year of a language other than English;
    (4) A secondary school program identified by a State-level 
partnership that is recognized by the State Scholars Initiative of the 
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), Boulder, 
Colorado;
    (5) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at 
least two courses from an International Baccalaureate Diploma Program 
sponsored by the International Baccalaureate Organization, Geneva, 
Switzerland, and receives a score of a ``4'' or higher on the 
examinations for at least two of those courses; or
    (6) Any secondary school program for a student who completes at 
least two Advanced Placement courses and receives a score of ``3'' or 
higher on the College Board's Advanced Placement Program Exams for at 
least two of those courses.
* * * * *
    Veteran means a person who--
    (1) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 
United States for a period of more than 180 days and was discharged or 
released under conditions other than dishonorable;
    (2) Served on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces of the 
United States and was discharged or released because of a service 
connected disability;
    (3) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 
United States and was called to active duty for a period of more than 
30 days; or
    (4) Was a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 
United States who served on active duty in support of a contingency 
operation (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, 
United States Code) on or after September 11, 2001.

[[Page 13891]]

    Veteran who has a high risk for academic failure means a veteran 
who--
    (1) Has been out of high school or dropped out of a program of 
postsecondary education for five or more years;
    (2) Has scored on standardized tests below the level that 
demonstrates a likelihood of success in a program of postsecondary 
education; or
    (3) Meets the definition of an individual with disabilities as 
defined in Sec.  645.6(b).
* * * * *
    73. Section 645.11 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  645.11  What services do all Upward Bound projects provide?

    (a) Any project assisted under this part must provide--
    (1) Academic tutoring to enable students to complete secondary or 
postsecondary courses, which may include instruction in reading, 
writing, study skills, mathematics, science, and other subjects;
    (2) Advice and assistance in secondary and postsecondary course 
selection;
    (3) Assistance in preparing for college entrance examinations and 
completing college admission applications;
    (4)(i) Information on the full range of Federal student financial 
aid programs and benefits (including Federal Pell Grant awards and loan 
forgiveness) and resources for locating public and private 
scholarships; and
    (ii) Assistance in completing financial aid applications, including 
the Free Application for Federal Student Aid;
    (5) Guidance on and assistance in--
    (i) Secondary school reentry;
    (ii) Alternative education programs for secondary school dropouts 
that lead to the receipt of a regular secondary school diploma;
    (iii) Entry into general educational development (GED) programs; or
    (iv) Entry into postsecondary education; and
    (6) Education or counseling services designed to improve the 
financial literacy and economic literacy of students or the students' 
parents, including financial planning for postsecondary education.
    (b) Any project that has received funds under this part for at 
least two years must include as part of its core curriculum in the next 
and succeeding years, instruction in--
    (1) Mathematics through pre-calculus;
    (2) Laboratory science;
    (3) Foreign language;
    (4) Composition; and
    (5) Literature.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13)

Sec.  645.12, 645.13, and 645.14  [Redesignated as Sec.  645.13, 
645.14, and 645.15]

    74. Sections 645.12, 645.13, and 645.14 of subpart B of part 645 
are redesignated as Sec. Sec.  645.13, 645.14, and 645.15 of subpart B 
of part 645, respectively.
    75. A new Sec.  645.12 is added to subpart B of part 645 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  645.12  What services may regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound 
Math-Science projects provide?

    Any project assisted under this part may provide such services as--
    (a) Exposure to cultural events, academic programs, and other 
activities not usually available to disadvantaged youth;
    (b) Information, activities, and instruction designed to acquaint 
youth participating in the project with the range of career options 
available to the youth;
    (c) On-campus residential programs;
    (d) Mentoring programs involving elementary school or secondary 
school teachers or counselors, faculty members at institutions of 
higher education, students, or any combination of these persons;
    (e) Work-study positions where youth participating in the project 
are exposed to careers requiring a postsecondary degree; and
    (f) Programs and activities as described in Sec.  645.11 or 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section that are specially 
designed for participants who are limited English proficient, 
participants from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in 
postsecondary education, participants who are individuals with 
disabilities, participants who are homeless children and youths, 
participants in or who are aging out of foster care, or other 
disconnected participants.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13)


    76. Newly redesignated Sec.  645.15 is amended by--
    A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``Sec.  645.11(a) 
and may be provided under Sec.  645.11(b)'' and adding, in their place, 
the citation ``Sec.  645.11'';
    B. In paragraph (b), removing the word ``and'';
    C. In paragraph (c), removing the punctuation ``.'' and adding, in 
its place, the word ``; and''; and
    D. Adding a new paragraph (d).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  645.15  What additional services do Veterans Upward Bound 
projects provide?

* * * * *
    (d) Provide special services, including mathematics and science 
preparation, to enable veterans to make the transition to postsecondary 
education.
* * * * *
    77. Section 645.20 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  645.20  How many applications for an Upward Bound award may an 
eligible applicant submit?

    (a) An applicant may submit more than one application as long as 
each application describes a project that serves a different target 
area or target school, or another designated different population.
    (b) For each grant competition, the Secretary designates, in the 
Federal Register notice inviting applications and other published 
application materials for the competition, the different populations 
for which an eligible entity may submit a separate application.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13, 1221e-3)


    78. Section 645.21 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  645.21  What assurances must an applicant include in an 
application?

    (a) An applicant for a Regular Upward Bound award must assure the 
Secretary that--
    (1) Not less than two-thirds of the project's participants will be 
low-income individuals who are potential first-generation college 
students;
    (2) The remaining participants will be low-income individuals, 
potential first-generation college students, or individuals who have a 
high risk for academic failure;
    (3) No student will be denied participation in a project because 
the student would enter the project after the 9th grade; and
    (4) Individuals who are receiving services from Gaining Early 
Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) project 
under 34 CFR part 694, another regular Upward Bound or Upward Bound 
Math and Science Centers project under this part, a Talent Search 
project under 34 CFR part 643, an Educational Opportunity Centers 
project under 34 CFR part 644, or other programs serving similar 
populations will not receive the same services under the proposed 
project.
    (b) An applicant for an Upward Bound Math and Science Centers award 
must assure the Secretary that--
    (1) Not less than two-thirds of the project's participants will be 
low-income individuals who are potential first-generation college 
students;
    (2) The remaining participants will be either low-income 
individuals or potential first-generation college students;

[[Page 13892]]

    (3) No student will be denied participation in a project because 
the student would enter the project after the 9th grade; and
    (4) Individuals who are receiving services from GEAR UP under 34 
CFR part 694, a regular Upward Bound or another Upward Bound Math-
Science Centers project under this part, a Talent Search project under 
34 CFR part 643, an Educational Opportunity Centers project under 34 
CFR part 644, or other programs serving similar populations will not 
receive the same services under the proposed project.
    (c) An applicant for a Veterans Upward Bound award must assure the 
Secretary that--
    (1) Not less than two-thirds of the project's participants will be 
low-income individuals who are potential first-generation college 
students;
    (2) The remaining participants will be low-income individuals, 
potential first-generation college students, or veterans who have a 
high risk for academic failure; and
    (3) Individuals who are receiving services from another Veterans 
Upward Bound project under this part, a Talent Search project under 34 
CFR part 643, an Educational Opportunity Centers project under 34 CFR 
part 644, or other programs serving similar populations will not 
receive the same services under the proposed project.


(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-13)


    79. Section 645.30 is amended by:
    A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the words ``in delivering 
services'' and adding, in their place, the words ``of high quality 
service delivery (PE)''.
    B. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), adding the word ``total'' after the 
word ``maximum'' the first time it appears.
    C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).
    D. Revising paragraph (d).
    The additions and revision read as follows:


Sec.  645.30  How does the Secretary decide which grants to make?

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) The Secretary evaluates the PE of an applicant for each of 
the three project years that the Secretary designates in the Federal 
Register notice inviting applications and the other published 
application materials for the competition.
    (iv) An applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the 
designated project years for which annual performance report data are 
available.
    (v) The final PE score is the average of the scores for the three 
project years assessed.
* * * * *
    (d) The Secretary does not make a new grant to an applicant if the 
applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.
* * * * *
    80. Section 645.31 is amended by:
    A. Revising paragraph (b).
    B. In paragraph (d)(2), adding the word ``secondary'' after the 
word ``from''; and adding the words ``institutions of higher 
education,'' after the word ``schools,''.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  645.31  What selection criteria does the Secretary use?

* * * * *
    (b) Objectives (9 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of 
the applicant's objectives and proposed targets (percentages) in the 
following areas on the basis of the extent to which they are both 
ambitious, as related to the need data provided under paragraph (a) of 
this section, and attainable, given the project's plan of operation, 
budget, and other resources:
    (1) For Regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science 
Centers--
    (i) (1 point) Academic performance (GPA);
    (ii) (1 point) Academic performance (standardized test scores);
    (iii) (2 points) Secondary school graduation (with regular 
secondary school diploma);
    (iv) (1 point) Completion of rigorous secondary school program of 
study;
    (v) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment; and
    (vi) (1 point) Postsecondary completion.
    (2) For Veterans Upward Bound--
    (i) (2 points) Academic performance (standardized test scores);
    (ii) (3 points) Education program retention and completion;
    (iii) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment; and
    (iv) (1 point) Postsecondary completion.
* * * * *
    81. Section 645.32 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  645.32  How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?

    (a) In the case of an application described in Sec.  
645.30(a)(2)(i), the Secretary--
    (1) Evaluates the applicant's performance under its expiring Upward 
Bound project;
    (2) Uses the approved project objectives for the applicant's 
expiring Upward Bound grant and the information the applicant submitted 
in its annual performance reports (APRs) to determine the number of PE 
points; and
    (3) May adjust a calculated PE score or decide not to award any PE 
points if other information such as audit reports, site visit reports, 
and project evaluation reports indicates the APR data used to calculate 
PE points are incorrect.
    (b) The Secretary does not award PE points for a given year to an 
applicant that does not serve at least 90 percent of the approved 
number of participants. For purposes of this section, the approved 
number of participants is the total number of participants the project 
would serve as agreed upon by the grantee and the Secretary.
    (c) For the criteria specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and 
(e)(2)(i) of this section (Number of participants), the Secretary does 
not award PE points if the applicant did not serve the approved number 
of participants.
    (d) The Secretary uses the approved number of participants, or the 
actual number of participants served in a given year if greater than 
the approved number of participants, as the denominator for calculating 
whether the applicant has met its approved objectives related to the 
following PE criteria:
    (1) Regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science Centers 
PE criteria in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section (Academic 
performance) and paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section (Secondary 
school retention and graduation).
    (2) Veterans Upward Bound PE criteria in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of 
this section (Academic improvement on standardized test) and paragraph 
(e)(2)(iii) of this section (Education program retention and 
completion).
    (e) For purposes of the PE evaluation of grants awarded after 
January 1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the 
basis of the following outcome criteria:
    (1) Regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science Centers.
    (i) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant 
provided services to the approved number of participants.
    (ii) Academic Performance. (A) (1.5 points) Whether the applicant 
met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the percentage of 
project participants that received a 2.5 grade point average or better 
on a 4.0 scale or its equivalent at the end of each school year.
    (B) (1.5 points) Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved 
objective

[[Page 13893]]

with regard to the percentage of project participants that performed at 
the proficient level on State assessments in reading/language arts and 
math.
    (iii) (3 points) Secondary school retention and graduation. Whether 
the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the 
percentage of participants who returned the next school year or 
graduated from secondary school with a regular secondary school 
diploma.
    (iv) (1.5 points) Rigorous secondary school program of study. 
Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with 
regard to the percentage of current and prior participants with an 
expected high school graduation date in the school year who were 
enrolled in and completed a rigorous secondary school program of study.
    (v) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment. Whether the applicant met 
or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the percentage of 
current and prior participants with an expected high school graduation 
date in the school year who enrolled in a program of postsecondary 
education by the fall term immediately following the school year.
    (vi) (1.5 points) Postsecondary completion. Whether the applicant 
met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the percentage of 
postsecondary enrollees who attained a postsecondary degree within the 
number of years specified in the approved objective.
    (2) Veterans Upward Bound.
    (i) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant 
provided services to the approved number of participants.
    (ii) (3 points) Academic improvement on standardized test. Whether 
the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the 
percentage of participants who improved their academic performance 
during the project year as measured by a standardized test taken by 
participants before and after receiving services from the project.
    (iii) (3 points) Education program retention and completion. 
Whether the applicant met or exceeded its approved objective with 
regard to the percentage of participants who remain enrolled in or 
completed their Veterans Upward Bound educational program during the 
project year.
    (iv) (3 points) Postsecondary enrollment. Whether the applicant met 
or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the percentage of 
participants who enrolled in an institution of higher education during 
the project year or by the fall term immediately following the project 
year.
    (v) (3 points) Postsecondary completion. Whether the applicant met 
or exceeded its approved objective with regard to the percentage of 
postsecondary enrollees who attained a postsecondary degree within the 
number of years specified in the approved objective.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW9)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-13)

Sec.  645.33  [Amended]

    82. Section 645.33 is amended by, in paragraph (b)(1), removing the 
amount ``$190,000'' and adding, in its place, the amount ``$200,000''.
    83. Section 645.34 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  645.34  How long is a project period?

    A project period under the Upward Bound program is five years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)


    84. A new Sec.  645.35 is added to subpart D of part 645 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  645.35  What is the review process for unsuccessful applicants?

    (a) Technical or administrative error for applications not 
reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated 
during the competition may request that the Secretary review the 
application if--
    (i) The applicant has met all of the application submission 
requirements included in the Federal Register notice inviting 
applications and the other published application materials for the 
competition; and
    (ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 
Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or 
administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.
    (2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an 
application includes--
    (i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of 
applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures 
included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the 
competition;
    (ii) An error in determining an applicant's eligibility for funding 
consideration, which may include, but is not limited to--
    (A) An incorrect conclusion that the application was submitted by 
an ineligible applicant;
    (B) An incorrect conclusion that the application exceeded the 
published page limit;
    (C) An incorrect conclusion that the applicant requested funding 
greater than the published maximum award; or
    (D) An incorrect conclusion that the application was missing 
critical sections of the application; and
    (iii) Any other mishandling of the application that resulted in an 
otherwise eligible application not being reviewed during the 
competition.
    (3)(i) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 
Department's agent made a technical or administrative error, the 
Secretary has the application evaluated and scored.
    (ii) If the total score assigned the application would have 
resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the 
program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior 
to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of 
applications described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Administrative or scoring error for applications that were 
reviewed. (1) An applicant that was not selected for funding during a 
competition may request that the Secretary conduct a second review of 
the application if--
    (i) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 
Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made an 
administrative or scoring error in the review of its application; and
    (ii) The final score assigned to the application is within the 
funding band described in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) An administrative error relates to either the PE points or the 
scores assigned to the application by the peer reviewers.
    (i) For PE points, an administrative error includes mathematical 
errors made by the Department or the Department's agent in the 
calculation of the PE points or a failure to correctly add the earned 
PE points to the peer reviewer score.
    (ii) For the peer review score, an administrative error is applying 
the wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.
    (3)(i) A scoring error relates only to the peer review process and 
includes errors caused by a reviewer who, in assigning points--
    (A) Uses criteria not required by the applicable law or program 
regulations, the Federal Register notice inviting applications, the 
other published application materials for the competition, or guidance 
provided to the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or
    (B) Does not consider relevant information included in the 
appropriate section of the application.
    (ii) The term ``scoring error'' does not include--

[[Page 13894]]

    (A) A peer reviewer's appropriate use of his or her professional 
judgment in evaluating and scoring an application;
    (B) Any situation in which the applicant did not include 
information needed to evaluate its response to a specific selection 
criterion in the appropriate section of the application as stipulated 
in the Federal Register notice inviting applications or the other 
published application materials for the competition; or
    (C) Any error by the applicant.
    (c) Procedures for the second review. (1) To ensure the timely 
awarding of grants under the competition, the Secretary sets aside a 
percentage of the funds allotted for the competition to be awarded 
after the second review is completed.
    (2) After the competition, the Secretary makes new awards in rank 
order as described in Sec.  645.30 based on the available funds for the 
competition minus the funds set aside for the second review.
    (3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to 
successful applicants, the Secretary notifies each unsuccessful 
applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the 
funding band for the second review and provides copies of the peer 
reviewers' evaluations of the applicant's application and the 
applicant's PE score, if applicable.
    (4) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the 
competition as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 
application received a score within the funding band as described in 
paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second review if the 
applicant demonstrates that the Department, the Department's agent, or 
a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error as discussed in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first 
review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 
application received a score within the funding band as described in 
paragraph (d) of this section has 15 calendar days after receiving 
notification that its application was not funded in which to submit a 
written request for a second review in accordance with the instructions 
and due date provided in the Secretary's written notification.
    (6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be 
received by the Department or submitted electronically to the 
designated e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established 
by the Secretary.
    (7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 
Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE 
points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, 
the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct 
number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application 
would have resulted in funding of the application during the 
competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds 
the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the 
second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of 
this section.
    (8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the 
Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error 
that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer 
reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score 
assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the 
application during the competition and the program has funds available, 
the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of 
applications based on the second peer review of applications described 
in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
    (9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring 
error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary 
convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the 
requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
    (10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer 
review are used in the second ranking of applications. The average 
score obtained from the second peer review panel is the final peer 
reviewer score for the application and will be used even if the second 
review results in a lower score for the application than that obtained 
in the initial review.
    (11) For applications in the funding band, the Secretary funds 
these applications in rank order based on adjusted scores and the 
available funds that have been set aside for the second review of 
applications.
    (d) Process for establishing a funding band. (1) For each 
competition, the Secretary establishes a funding band for the second 
review of applications.
    (2) The Secretary establishes the funding band for each competition 
based on the amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second 
review of applications.
    (3) The funding band is composed of those applications--
    (i) With a rank-order score before the second review that is below 
the lowest score of applications funded after the first review; and
    (ii) That would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the 
funds that were set aside for the second review of applications for the 
competition.
    (e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary's determination of whether 
the applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the 
Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application are final and not 
subject to further appeal or challenge.
    (2) An application that scored below the established funding band 
for the competition is not eligible for a second review.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW4.)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)


    85. Section 645.40 is amended by:
    A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``34 CFR part 74, 
subpart Q'' and adding, in their place, the words ``34 CFR 74.27, 
75.530, and 80.22, as applicable''.
    B. Revising paragraph (n).
    C. Redesignating paragraph (o) as paragraph (p).
    D. Adding new paragraph (o).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  645.40  What are allowable costs?

* * * * *
    (n) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware, software, and 
other equipment and supplies that support the delivery of services to 
participants, including technology used by participants in a rigorous 
secondary school program of study.
    (o) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer equipment and software 
needed for project administration and recordkeeping.
* * * * *
    86. Section 645.42 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  645.42  What are Upward Bound stipends?

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The stipend may not exceed $60 per month for the summer school 
recess for a period not to exceed three months, except that youth 
participating in a work-study position may be paid $300 per month 
during the summer school recess.
* * * * *
    87. Section 645.43 is amended by:
    A. Removing paragraphs (a) and (b).
    B. Adding a new paragraph (a).
    C. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).
    D. Adding an OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph 
(b).

[[Page 13895]]

    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  645.43  What other requirements must a grantee meet?

    (a) Project director. (1) A grantee must employ a full-time project 
director unless--
    (i) The director is also administering one or two additional 
programs for disadvantaged students operated by the sponsoring 
institution or agency; or
    (ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of this requirement.
    (2) The grantee must give the project director sufficient authority 
to administer the project effectively.
    (3) The Secretary waives the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section if the applicant demonstrates that the requirement to 
administer no more than three programs will hinder effective 
coordination between the Regular Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math and 
Science or Veterans Upward Bound program and--
    (i) One or more Federal TRIO programs (sections 402A through 402F 
of the HEA); or
    (ii) One or more similar programs funded through other sources.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW9.)
* * * * *

PART 646--STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES

    88. The authority citation for part 646 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14, unless otherwise 
noted.

    89. Section 646.1 is amended by:
    A. In paragraph (a), adding the word ``college'' before the word 
``retention''.
    B. Revising paragraph (c).
    C. Adding new paragraph (d).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  646.1  What is the Student Support Services program?

* * * * *
    (c) Foster an institutional climate supportive of the success of 
students who are limited English proficient, students from groups that 
are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education, 
individuals with disabilities, homeless children and youth, foster care 
youth, or other disconnected students; and
    (d) Improve the financial literacy and economic literacy of 
students in areas such as--
    (1) Basic personal income, household money management, and 
financial planning skills; and
    (2) Basic economic decision-making skills.
* * * * *
    90. Section 646.4 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  646.4  What activities and services does a project provide?

    (a) A Student Support Services project must provide the following 
services:
    (1) Academic tutoring, directly or through other services provided 
by the institution, to enable students to complete postsecondary 
courses, which may include instruction in reading, writing, study 
skills, mathematics, science, and other subjects.
    (2) Advice and assistance in postsecondary course selection.
    (3)(i) Information on both the full range of Federal student 
financial aid programs and benefits (including Federal Pell Grant 
awards and loan forgiveness) and resources for locating public and 
private scholarships; and
    (ii) Assistance in completing financial aid applications, including 
the Free Application for Federal Student Aid.
    (4) Education or counseling services designed to improve the 
financial literacy and economic literacy of students, including 
financial planning for postsecondary education.
    (5) Activities designed to assist students participating in the 
project in applying for admission to, and obtaining financial 
assistance for enrollment in, graduate and professional programs.
    (6) Activities designed to assist students enrolled in two-year 
institutions of higher education in applying for admission to, and 
obtaining financial assistance for enrollment in, a four-year program 
of postsecondary education.
    (b) A Student Support Services project may provide the following 
services:
    (1) Individualized counseling for personal, career, and academic 
matters provided by assigned counselors.
    (2) Information, activities, and instruction designed to acquaint 
students participating in the project with the range of career options 
available to the students.
    (3) Exposure to cultural events and academic programs not usually 
available to disadvantaged students.
    (4) Mentoring programs involving faculty or upper class students, 
or a combination thereof.
    (5) Securing temporary housing during breaks in the academic year 
for--
    (i) Students who are homeless children and youths or were formerly 
homeless children and youths; and
    (ii) Foster care youths.
    (6) Programs and activities as described in paragraph (a) of this 
section or paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section that are 
specially designed for students who are limited English proficient, 
students from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in 
postsecondary education, students who are individuals with 
disabilities, students who are homeless children and youths, students 
who are foster care youth, or other disconnected students.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)


    91. Section 646.5 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  646.5  How long is a project period?

    A project period under the Student Support Services program is five 
years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)


    92. Section 646.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  646.6  What regulations apply?

* * * * *
    (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations 
(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec.  75.215-75.221), 
77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
    93. Section 646.7 is amended by:
    A. Removing paragraph (a).
    B. Redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (a) and (b), 
respectively.
    C. In newly redesignated paragraph (b), revising the definition of 
Different campus; removing the definition of Different population of 
participants; revising the definition of Individual with disabilities; 
and adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for Different 
population, Financial and economic literacy, First generation college 
student, Foster care youth, Homeless children and youth, Institution of 
higher education, and Low-income individual.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  646.7  What definitions apply?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Different campus means a site of an institution of higher education 
that--
    (1) Is geographically apart from the main campus of the 
institution;
    (2) Is permanent in nature; and
    (3) Offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree, 
certificate, or other recognized educational credential.
    Different population means a group of individuals that an eligible 
entity desires to serve through an application for a grant under the 
Student Support Services program and that--

[[Page 13896]]

    (1) Is separate and distinct from any other population that the 
entity has applied for a grant to serve; or
    (2) While sharing some of the same needs as another population that 
the eligible entity has applied for a grant to serve, has distinct 
needs for specialized services.
    Financial and economic literacy means knowledge about personal 
financial decision-making, including but not limited to knowledge 
about--
    (1) Personal and family budget planning;
    (2) Understanding credit building principles to meet long-term and 
short-term goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit scoring, negative 
impacts on credit scores);
    (3) Cost planning for secondary education (e.g., spending, saving, 
personal budgeting);
    (4) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition 
vs. fees, personal costs);
    (5) Scholarship, grant and loan education (e.g., searches, 
application processes, differences between private and government 
loans); and
    (6) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal 
Student Aid (FAFSA).
    First generation college student means--
    (1) A student neither of whose natural or adoptive parents received 
a baccalaureate degree; or
    (2) A student who, prior to the age of 18, regularly resided with 
and received support from only one parent and whose supporting parent 
did not receive a baccalaureate degree.
    (3) An individual who, prior to the age of 18, did not regularly 
reside with or receive support from a natural or an adoptive parent.
    Foster care youth means youth who are in foster care or are aging 
out of the foster care system.
    Homeless children and youth means persons defined in section 725 of 
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 1143a).
    Individual with disabilities means a person who has a diagnosed 
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits that person's 
ability to participate in educational experiences and opportunities.
    Institution of higher education means an educational institution as 
defined in sections 101 and 102 of the Act.
* * * * *
    Low-income individual means an individual whose family's taxable 
income did not exceed 150 percent of the poverty level amount in the 
calendar year preceding the year in which the individual initially 
participated in the project. The poverty level amount is determined by 
using criteria of poverty established by the Bureau of the Census of 
the U.S. Department of Commerce.
* * * * *
    94. Subpart B of part 646 is revised to read as follows:

Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?


Sec.  646.10  How many applications may an eligible applicant submit 
and for what different populations may an eligible application be 
submitted?

    (a) An eligible applicant may submit more than one application as 
long as each application describes a project that serves a different 
campus or a designated different population.
    (b) For each grant competition, the Secretary designates, in the 
Federal Register notice inviting applications and other published 
application materials for the competition, the different populations 
for which an eligible entity may submit a separate application.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

Sec.  646.11  What assurances and other information must an applicant 
include in an application?

    (a) An applicant must assure the Secretary in the application 
that--
    (1) Not less than two-thirds of the project participants will be--
    (i) Low-income individuals who are first generation college 
students; or
    (ii) Individuals with disabilities;
    (2) The remaining project participants will be low-income 
individuals, first generation college students, or individuals with 
disabilities; and
    (3) Not less than one-third of the individuals with disabilities 
served also will be low-income individuals.
    (b) The applicant must describe in the application its efforts, and 
where applicable, past history, in--
    (1) Providing sufficient financial assistance to meet the full 
financial need of each student in the project; and
    (2) Maintaining the loan burden of each student in the project at a 
manageable level.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-1840-NEW5)


(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)


    95. Section 646.20 is amended by:
    A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the words ``in delivering 
services'' and adding, in their place, the words ``of high quality 
service delivery (PE)''.
    B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii).
    C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(v).
    D. Revising paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  646.20  How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make?

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The maximum total score for all the criteria in Sec.  646.22 
is 15 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in 
parentheses with the criterion.
    (iii) The Secretary evaluates the PE of an applicant for each of 
the three project years that the Secretary designates in the Federal 
Register notice inviting applications and the other published 
application materials for the competition.
    (iv) An applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the 
designated project years for which annual performance report data are 
available.
    (v) The final PE score is the average of the scores for the three 
project years assessed.
* * * * *
    (d) The Secretary does not make a new grant to an applicant if the 
applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.
* * * * *
    96. Section 646.21 is amended by:
    A. Revising paragraph (b).
    B. Revising the OMB control number at the end of the section.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  646.21  What selection criteria does the Secretary use to 
evaluate an application?

* * * * *
    (b) Objectives (8 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of 
the applicant's proposed objectives in the following areas on the basis 
of the extent to which they are both ambitious, as related to the need 
data provided under paragraph (a) of this section, and attainable, 
given the project's plan of operation, budget, and other resources.
    (1) (3 points) Retention in postsecondary education.
    (2) (2 points) In good academic standing at grantee institution.
    (3) Two-year institutions only. (i) (1 point) Certificate or degree 
completion; and
    (ii) (2 points) Certificate or degree completion and transfer to a 
four-year institution.
    (4) Four-year institutions only. (3 points) Completion of a 
baccalaureate degree.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW5.)
* * * * *

[[Page 13897]]

    97. Section 646.22 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  646.22  How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?

    (a) In the case of an application described in Sec.  
646.20(a)(2)(i), the Secretary--
    (1) Evaluates the applicant's performance under its expiring 
Student Support Services project;
    (2) Uses the approved project objectives for the applicant's 
expiring Student Support Services grant and the information the 
applicant submitted in its annual performance reports (APRs) to 
determine the number of prior PE points; and
    (3) May adjust a calculated PE score or decide not to award PE 
points if other information such as audit reports, site visit reports, 
and project evaluation reports indicates the APR data used to calculate 
PE points are incorrect.
    (b) The Secretary does not award PE points for a given year to an 
applicant that does not serve at least 90 percent of the approved 
number of participants. For purposes of this section, the approved 
number of participants is the total number of participants the project 
would serve as agreed upon by the grantee and the Secretary.
    (c) For the criterion specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section 
(Number of participants), the Secretary does not award PE points if the 
applicant did not serve the approved number of participants.
    (d) The Secretary uses the approved number of participants, or the 
actual number of participants served in a given year if greater than 
the approved number of participants, as the denominator for calculating 
whether the applicant has met its approved objectives related to 
paragraph (e)(2) of this section (Postsecondary retention) and 
paragraph (e)(3) of this section (Good academic standing).
    (e) For purposes of the PE evaluation of grants awarded after 
January 1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the 
basis of the following outcome criteria:
    (1) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant 
provided services to the approved number of participants.
    (2) (4 points) Postsecondary retention. Whether the applicant met 
or exceeded its objective regarding the percentage of all participants 
served who continue to be enrolled in a program of postsecondary 
education from one academic year to the beginning of the next academic 
year or who complete a program of postsecondary education at the 
grantee institution during the academic year or transfer from a two-
year institution to a four-year institution during the academic year.
    (3) (4 points) Good academic standing. Whether the applicant met or 
exceeded its objective regarding the percentage of all participants 
served who are in good academic standing at the grantee institution.
    (4) (4 points) Degree completion (for an applicant institution of 
higher education offering primarily a baccalaureate or higher degree). 
Whether the applicant met or exceeded its objective regarding the 
percentage of participants receiving a baccalaureate degree at the 
grantee institution within the specified number of years.
    (5) Degree completion and transfer (for an applicant institution of 
higher education offering primarily an associate degree). Whether the 
applicant met or exceeded its objectives regarding the percentage of 
participants who--
    (i) (2 points) Complete a degree or certificate within the number 
of years specified in the approved objective; and
    (ii) (2 points) Transfer within the number of years specified in 
the approved objective to institutions of higher education that offer 
baccalaureate degrees.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW10)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11; 1070a-14)

Sec.  646.23  [Amended]

    98. Section 646.23(b)(1) is amended by removing the amount 
``$170,000'' and adding, in its place, the amount ``$200,000''.
    99. A new Sec.  646.24 is added to subpart C of part 646 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  646.24  What is the review process for unsuccessful applicants?

    (a) Technical or administrative error for applications not 
reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated 
during the competition may request that the Secretary review the 
application if--
    (i) The applicant has met all of the application submission 
requirements included in the Federal Register notice inviting 
applications and the other published application materials for the 
competition; and
    (ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 
Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or 
administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.
    (2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an 
application includes--
    (i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of 
applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures 
included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the 
competition;
    (ii) An error in determining an applicant's eligibility for funding 
consideration, which may include, but is not limited to--
    (A) An incorrect conclusion that the application was submitted by 
an ineligible applicant;
    (B) An incorrect conclusion that the application exceeded the 
published page limit;
    (C) An incorrect conclusion that the applicant requested funding 
greater than the published maximum award; or
    (D) An incorrect conclusion that the application was missing 
critical sections of the application; and
    (iii) Any other mishandling of the application that resulted in an 
otherwise eligible application not being reviewed during the 
competition.
    (3)(i) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 
Department's agent made a technical or administrative error, the 
Secretary has the application evaluated and scored.
    (ii) If the total score assigned the application would have 
resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the 
program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior 
to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of 
applications described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Administrative or scoring error for applications that were 
reviewed. (1) An applicant that was not selected for funding during a 
competition may request that the Secretary conduct a second review of 
the application if--
    (i) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 
Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made an 
administrative or scoring error in the review of its application; and
    (ii) The final score assigned to the application is within the 
funding band described in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) An administrative error relates to either the PE points or the 
scores assigned to the application by the peer reviewers.
    (i) For PE points, an administrative error includes mathematical 
errors made by the Department or the Department's agent in the 
calculation of the PE points or a failure to correctly add the earned 
PE points to the peer reviewer score.
    (ii) For the peer review score, an administrative error is applying 
the wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.
    (3)(i) A scoring error relates only to the peer review process and 
includes

[[Page 13898]]

errors caused by a reviewer who, in assigning points--
    (A) Uses criteria not required by the applicable law or program 
regulations, the Federal Register notice inviting applications, the 
other published application materials for the competition, or guidance 
provided to the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or
    (B) Does not consider relevant information included in the 
appropriate section of the application.
    (ii) The term ``scoring error'' does not include--
    (A) A peer reviewer's appropriate use of his or her professional 
judgment in evaluating and scoring an application;
    (B) Any situation in which the applicant did not include 
information needed to evaluate its response to a specific selection 
criterion in the appropriate section of the application as stipulated 
in the Federal Register notice inviting applications or the other 
published application materials for the competition; or
    (C) Any error by the applicant.
    (c) Procedures for the second review. (1) To ensure the timely 
awarding of grants under the competition, the Secretary sets aside a 
percentage of the funds allotted for the competition to be awarded 
after the second review is completed.
    (2) After the competition, the Secretary makes new awards in rank 
order as described in Sec.  646.20 based on the available funds for the 
competition minus the funds set aside for the second review.
    (3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to 
successful applicants, the Secretary notifies each unsuccessful 
applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the 
funding band for the second review and provides copies of the peer 
reviewers' evaluations of the applicant's application and the 
applicant's PE score, if applicable.
    (4) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the 
competition as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 
application received a score within the funding band as described in 
paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second review if the 
applicant demonstrates that the Department, the Department's agent, or 
a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error as discussed in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first 
review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 
application received a score within the funding band as described in 
paragraph (d) of this section has 15 calendar days after receiving 
notification that its application was not funded in which to submit a 
written request for a second review in accordance with the instructions 
and due date provided in the Secretary's written notification.
    (6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be 
received by the Department or submitted electronically to the 
designated e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established 
by the Secretary.
    (7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 
Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE 
points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, 
the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct 
number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application 
would have resulted in funding of the application during the 
competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds 
the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the 
second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of 
this section.
    (8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the 
Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error 
that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer 
reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score 
assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the 
application during the competition and the program has funds available, 
the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of 
applications based on the second peer review of applications described 
in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
    (9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring 
error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary 
convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the 
requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
    (10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer 
review are used in the second ranking of applications. The average 
score obtained from the second peer review panel is the final peer 
reviewer score for the application and will be used even if the second 
review results in a lower score for the application than that obtained 
in the initial review.
    (11) For applications in the funding band, the Secretary funds 
these applications in rank order based on adjusted scores and the 
available funds that have been set aside for the second review of 
applications.
    (d) Process for establishing a funding band. (1) For each 
competition, the Secretary establishes a funding band for the second 
review of applications.
    (2) The Secretary establishes the funding band for each competition 
based on the amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second 
review of applications.
    (3) The funding band is composed of those applications--
    (i) With a rank-order score before the second review that is below 
the lowest score of applications funded after the first review; and
    (ii) That would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the 
funds that were set aside for the second review of applications for the 
competition.
    (e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary's determination of whether 
the applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the 
Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application are final and not 
subject to further appeal or challenge.
    (2) An application that scored below the established funding band 
for the competition is not eligible for a second review.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW5.)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)


    100. Section 646.30 is amended by:
    A. In the introductory text, removing the words ``34 CFR part 74, 
subpart Q'' and adding, in their place, the words ``34 CFR 74.27, 
75.530, and 80.22, as applicable''.
    B. Revising paragraph (f).
    C. Adding new paragraphs (i) and (j).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  646.30  What are allowable costs?

* * * * *
    (f) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware, computer 
software, or other equipment for participant development, project 
administration, or project recordkeeping.
* * * * *
    (i) Grant Aid to eligible students who--
    (1) Are in their first two years of postsecondary education and who 
are receiving Federal Pell Grants under subpart 1 of part A of title IV 
of the Act; or
    (2) Have completed their first two years of postsecondary education 
and who are receiving Federal Pell Grants under subpart 1 of part A of 
title IV of the Act if the institution demonstrates to the satisfaction 
of the Secretary that--
    (i) These students are at high risk of dropping out; and
    (ii) It will first meet the needs of all its eligible first- and 
second-year

[[Page 13899]]

students for services under this paragraph.
    (j) Temporary housing during breaks in the academic year for--
    (1) Students who are homeless children and youths or were formerly 
homeless children and youths; and
    (2) Students who are foster care youth.
* * * * *


Sec.  646.31  [Amended]

    101. Section 646.31(b) is amended by adding the words ``, except 
for Grant aid under Sec.  646.30(i)'' after the word ``support''.


Sec.  646.32  [Amended]

    102. Section 646.32 is amended by:
    A. In paragraph (a)(2), removing the words ``Higher Education''.
    B. Revising paragraph (c).
    C. In the OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph (d), 
removing the numbers ``1840-0017'' and adding, in its place, the 
numbers ``1840-NEW5''.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  646.32  What other requirements must a grantee meet?

* * * * *
    (c) Project director. (1) A grantee must employ a full-time project 
director unless--
    (i) The director is also administering one or two additional 
programs for disadvantaged students operated by the sponsoring 
institution or agency; or
    (ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of this requirement.
    (2) The grantee must give the project director sufficient authority 
to administer the project effectively.
    (3) The Secretary waives the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section if the applicant demonstrates that the requirement to 
administer no more than three programs will hinder effective 
coordination between the Student Support Services program and--
    (i) One or more Federal TRIO programs (sections 402A through 402F 
of the HEA); or
    (ii) One or more similar programs funded through other sources.
* * * * *
    103. Section 646.33 is added to subpart D of part 646 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  646.33  What are the matching requirements for a grantee that 
uses Student Support Services program funds for student Grant aid?

    (a) Except for grantees described in paragraph (b) of this section, 
a grantee that uses Student Support Services program funds for Grant 
aid to eligible students described in Sec.  646.30(i) must--
    (1) Match the Federal funds used for Grant aid, in cash, from non-
Federal funds, in an amount that is not less than 33 percent of the 
total amount of Federal grant funds used for Grant aid; and
    (2) Use no more than 20 percent of the Federal program funds 
awarded the grantee each year for Grant aid.
    (b) A grant recipient that is an institution of higher education 
eligible to receive funds under part A or B of title III or title V of 
the HEA, as amended, is not required to match the Federal funds used 
for Grant aid.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW10.)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

PART 647--RONALD E. MCNAIR POSTBACCALAUREATE ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM

    104. The authority citation for part 647 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-15, unless otherwise 
noted.

    105. Section 647.4 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  647.4  What activities and services does a project provide?

    (a) A McNair project must provide the following services and 
activities:
    (1) Opportunities for research or other scholarly activities at the 
grantee institution or at graduate centers that are designed to provide 
students with effective preparation for doctoral study.
    (2) Summer internships.
    (3) Seminars and other educational activities designed to prepare 
students for doctoral study.
    (4) Tutoring.
    (5) Academic counseling.
    (6) Assistance to students in securing admission to, and financial 
assistance for, enrollment in graduate programs.
    (b) A McNair project may provide the following services and 
activities:
    (1) Education or counseling services designed to improve the 
financial literacy and economic literacy of students, including 
financial planning for postsecondary education.
    (2) Mentoring programs involving faculty members at institutions of 
higher education, students, or a combination of faculty members and 
students.
    (3) Exposure to cultural events and academic programs not usually 
available to disadvantaged students.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-15)


    106. Section 647.5 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  647.5  How long is a project period?

    A project period under the McNair program is five years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)


    107. Section 647.6 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  647.6  What regulations apply?

* * * * *
    (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations 
(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for Sec. Sec.  75.215-75.221), 
77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
* * * * *
    108. Section 647.7(b) is amended by:
    A. Removing the definition of Summer internship.
    B. In the definition of Graduate center, revising the introductory 
text.
    C. Revising the definition of Groups underrepresented in graduate 
education.
    D. Revising the definition of Institution of higher education.
    E. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions for Different 
campus, Different population, Financial and economic literacy, and 
Research or scholarly activity.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  647.7  What definitions apply?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Different campus means a site of an institution of higher education 
that--
    (1) Is geographically apart from the main campus of the 
institution;
    (2) Is permanent in nature; and
    (3) Offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree, 
certificate, or other recognized educational credential.
    Different population means a group of individuals that an eligible 
entity desires to serve through an application for a grant under the 
McNair TRIO program and that--
    (1) Is separate and distinct from any other population that the 
entity has applied for a grant to serve; or
    (2) While sharing some of the same needs as another population that 
the eligible entity has applied for a grant to serve, has distinct 
needs for specialized services.
    Financial and economic literacy means knowledge about personal 
financial decision-making, including but not limited to knowledge 
about--
    (1) Personal and family budget planning;
    (2) Understanding credit building principles to meet long-term and 
short-term goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit scoring, negative 
impacts on credit scores);
    (3) Cost planning for postsecondary education (e.g., spending, 
saving, personal budgeting);

[[Page 13900]]

    (4) College cost of attendance (e.g., public vs. private, tuition 
vs. fees, personal costs);
    (5) Scholarship, grant and loan education (e.g., searches, 
application processes, and differences between private and government 
loans); and
    (6) Assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal 
Student Aid (FAFSA).
* * * * *
    Graduate center means an institution of higher education as defined 
in sections 101 and 102 of the HEA; and that--
* * * * *
    Groups underrepresented in graduate education. The following ethnic 
and racial groups are considered underrepresented in graduate 
education: Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, American Indian, Alaskan 
Native (as defined in section 7306 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)), Native Hawaiians (as defined 
in section 7207 of the ESEA), and Native American Pacific Islanders (as 
defined in section 320 of the HEA).
    Institution of higher education means an educational institution as 
defined in sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.
* * * * *
    Research or scholarly activity means an educational activity that 
is more rigorous than is typically available to undergraduates in a 
classroom setting, that is definitive in its start and end dates, 
contains appropriate benchmarks for completion of various components, 
and is conducted under the guidance of an appropriate faculty member 
with experience in the relevant discipline.
* * * * *

Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?

    109. Subpart B of part 647 is amended by revising the subpart 
heading to read as set forth above.


Sec.  647.10  [Redesignated as Sec.  647.11]

    109a. Redesignate Sec.  647.10 as Sec.  647.11.
    110. Section 647.10 is added to subpart B of part 647 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  647.10  How many applications may an eligible applicant submit?

    (a) An applicant may submit more than one application for McNair 
grants as long as each application describes a project that serves a 
different campus or a designated different population.
    (b) For each grant competition, the Secretary designates, in the 
Federal Register notice inviting applications and the other published 
application materials for the competition, the different populations 
for which an eligible entity may submit a separate application.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-15; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)


    111. Section 647.20 is amended by:
    A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), adding the words ``of high quality 
service delivery (PE)'' after the words ``prior experience''.
    B. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii).
    C. Adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iv), (a)(2)(v), and (a)(2)(vi).
    D. Revising paragraph (d).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  647.20  How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make?

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The maximum total score for all the criteria in Sec.  647.22 
is 15 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in 
parentheses with the criterion.
* * * * *
    (iv) The Secretary evaluates the PE of an applicant for each of the 
three project years that the Secretary designates in the Federal 
Register notice inviting applications and the other published 
application materials for the competition.
    (v) An applicant may earn up to 15 PE points for each of the 
designated project years for which annual performance report data are 
available.
    (vi) The final PE score is the average of the scores for the three 
project years assessed.
* * * * *
    (d) The Secretary does not make a new grant to an applicant if the 
applicant's prior project involved the fraudulent use of program funds.
* * * * *
    112. Section 647.21 is amended by:
    A. Revising paragraph (b).
    B. Adding an OMB control number parenthetical following paragraph 
(d).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  647.21  What selection criteria does the Secretary use?

* * * * *
    (b) Objectives (9 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of 
the applicant's objectives and proposed targets (percentages) in the 
following areas on the basis of the extent to which they are both 
ambitious, as related to the need data provided under paragraph (a) of 
this section, and attainable, given the project's plan of operation, 
budget, and other resources:
    (1) (2 points) Research.
    (2) (3 points) Enrollment in a graduate program.
    (3) (2 points) Continued enrollment in graduate study.
    (4) (2 points) Doctoral degree attainment.
* * * * *

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW6)

* * * * *
    113. Section 647.22 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  647.22  How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?

    (a) In the case of an applicant described in Sec.  647.20(a)(2)(i), 
the Secretary--
    (1) Evaluates an applicant's performance under its expiring McNair 
project;
    (2) Uses the approved project objectives for the applicant's 
expiring McNair grant and the information the applicant submitted in 
its annual performance reports (APRs) to determine the number of PE 
points; and
    (3) May adjust a calculated PE score or decide not to award PE 
points if other information such as audit reports, site visit reports, 
and project evaluation reports indicates the APR data used to calculate 
PE are incorrect.
    (b) The Secretary does not award PE points for a given year to an 
applicant that does not serve at least 90 percent of the approved 
number of participants. For purposes of this section, the approved 
number of participants is the total number of participants the project 
would serve as agreed upon by the grantee and the Secretary.
    (c) For the criteria specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section 
(Number of participants), the Secretary does not award any PE points if 
the applicant did not serve the approved number of participants.
    (d) The Secretary uses the approved number of participants, or the 
actual number of participants served in a given year if greater than 
the approved number of participants, as the denominator for calculating 
whether the applicant has met its approved objective related to 
paragraph (e)(2) of this section (Research and scholarly activities).
    (e) For purposes of the PE evaluation of grants awarded after 
January 1, 2009, the Secretary evaluates the applicant's PE on the 
basis of the following outcome criteria:
    (1) (3 points) Number of participants. Whether the applicant 
provided services to the approved number of participants.
    (2) (3 points) Research and scholarly activities. Whether the 
applicant met or exceeded its objective for providing

[[Page 13901]]

participants with appropriate research and scholarly activities each 
academic year.
    (3) (3 points) Graduate school enrollment. Whether the applicant 
met or exceeded its objective with regard to the acceptance and 
enrollment in graduate programs of participants who complete the 
baccalaureate program during the academic year.
    (4) (4 points) Continued enrollment in graduate school. Whether the 
applicant met or exceeded its objective with regard to the continued 
enrollment in graduate school of prior participants.
    (5) (2 points) Doctoral degree attainment. Whether the applicant 
met or exceeded its objective with regard to the attainment of doctoral 
level degrees of prior participants in the specified number of years.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW11.)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-15)

Sec.  647.23  [Amended]

    114. Section 647.23 is amended by:
    A. In paragraph (b), introductory text, removing the words 
``beginning in fiscal year 1995''.
    B. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the amount ``$190,000'' and 
adding, in its place, the amount ``$200,000''.
    115. Section 647.24 is added to subpart C of part 647 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  647.24  What is the review process for unsuccessful applicants?

    (a) Technical or administrative error for applications not 
reviewed. (1) An applicant whose grant application was not evaluated 
during the competition may request that the Secretary review the 
application if--
    (i) The applicant has met all of the application submission 
requirements included in the Federal Register notice inviting 
applications and the other published application materials for the 
competition; and
    (ii) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 
Department or an agent of the Department made a technical or 
administrative error in the processing of the submitted application.
    (2) A technical or administrative error in the processing of an 
application includes--
    (i) A problem with the system for the electronic submission of 
applications that was not addressed in accordance with the procedures 
included in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for the 
competition;
    (ii) An error in determining an applicant's eligibility for funding 
consideration, which may include, but is not limited to--
    (A) An incorrect conclusion that the application was submitted by 
an ineligible applicant;
    (B) An incorrect conclusion that the application exceeded the 
published page limit;
    (C) An incorrect conclusion that the applicant requested funding 
greater than the published maximum award; or
    (D) An incorrect conclusion that the application was missing 
critical sections of the application; and
    (iii) Any other mishandling of the application that resulted in an 
otherwise eligible application not being reviewed during the 
competition.
    (3)(i) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 
Department's agent made a technical or administrative error, the 
Secretary has the application evaluated and scored.
    (ii) If the total score assigned the application would have 
resulted in funding of the application during the competition and the 
program has funds available, the Secretary funds the application prior 
to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review of 
applications described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Administrative or scoring error for applications that were 
reviewed. (1) An applicant that was not selected for funding during a 
competition may request that the Secretary conduct a second review of 
the application if--
    (i) The applicant provides evidence demonstrating that the 
Department, an agent of the Department, or a peer reviewer made an 
administrative or scoring error in the review of its application; and
    (ii) The final score assigned to the application is within the 
funding band described in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) An administrative error relates to either the PE points or the 
scores assigned to the application by the peer reviewers.
    (i) For PE points, an administrative error includes mathematical 
errors made by the Department or the Department's agent in the 
calculation of the PE points or a failure to correctly add the earned 
PE points to the peer reviewer score.
    (ii) For the peer review score, an administrative error is applying 
the wrong peer reviewer scores to an application.
    (3)(i) A scoring error relates only to the peer review process and 
includes errors caused by a reviewer who, in assigning points--
    (A) Uses criteria not required by the applicable law or program 
regulations, the Federal Register notice inviting applications, the 
other published application materials for the competition, or guidance 
provided to the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or
    (B) Does not consider relevant information included in the 
appropriate section of the application.
    (ii) The term ``scoring error'' does not include--
    (A) A peer reviewer's appropriate use of his or her professional 
judgment in evaluating and scoring an application;
    (B) Any situation in which the applicant did not include 
information needed to evaluate its response to a specific selection 
criterion in the appropriate section of the application as stipulated 
in the Federal Register notice inviting applications or the other 
published application materials for the competition; or
    (C) Any error by the applicant.
    (c) Procedures for the second review. (1) To ensure the timely 
awarding of grants under the competition, the Secretary sets aside a 
percentage of the funds allotted for the competition to be awarded 
after the second review is completed.
    (2) After the competition, the Secretary makes new awards in rank 
order as described in Sec.  647.20 based on the available funds for the 
competition minus the funds set aside for the second review.
    (3) After the Secretary issues a notification of grant award to 
successful applicants, the Secretary notifies each unsuccessful 
applicant in writing as to the status of its application and the 
funding band for the second review and provides copies of the peer 
reviewers' evaluations of the applicant's application and the 
applicant's PE score, if applicable.
    (4) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the 
competition as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 
application received a score within the funding band as described in 
paragraph (d) of this section, may request a second review if the 
applicant demonstrates that the Department, the Department's agent, or 
a peer reviewer made an administrative or scoring error as discussed in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (5) An applicant whose application was not funded after the first 
review as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and whose 
application received a score within the funding band as described in 
paragraph (d) of this section has 15 calendar days after receiving 
notification that its application was not funded in which to submit a 
written request for a second review in accordance with the instructions 
and due date provided in the Secretary's written notification.

[[Page 13902]]

    (6) An applicant's written request for a second review must be 
received by the Department or submitted electronically to a designated 
e-mail or Web address by the due date and time established by the 
Secretary.
    (7) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the 
Department's agent made an administrative error that relates to the PE 
points awarded, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, 
the Secretary adjusts the applicant's PE score to reflect the correct 
number of PE points. If the adjusted score assigned to the application 
would have resulted in funding of the application during the 
competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary funds 
the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the 
second peer review of applications described in paragraph (c)(9) of 
this section.
    (8) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the 
Department's agent or the peer reviewer made an administrative error 
that relates to the peer reviewers' score(s), as described in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii) of this section, the Secretary adjusts the applicant's peer 
reviewers' score(s) to correct the error. If the adjusted score 
assigned to the application would have resulted in funding of the 
application during the competition and the program has funds available, 
the Secretary funds the application prior to the re-ranking of 
applications based on the second peer review of applications described 
in paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
    (9) If the Secretary determines that a peer reviewer made a scoring 
error, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Secretary 
convenes a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the 
requirements in section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA.
    (10) The average of the peer reviewers' scores from the second peer 
review are used in the second ranking of applications. The average 
score obtained from the second peer review panel is the final peer 
reviewer score for the application and will be used even if the second 
review results in a lower score for the application than that obtained 
in the initial review.
    (11) For applications in the funding band, the Secretary funds 
these applications in rank order based on adjusted scores and the 
available funds that have been set aside for the second review of 
applications.
    (d) Process for establishing a funding band. (1) For each 
competition, the Secretary establishes a funding band for the second 
review of applications.
    (2) The Secretary establishes the funding band for each competition 
based on the amount of funds the Secretary has set aside for the second 
review of applications.
    (3) The funding band is composed of those applications--
    (i) With a rank-order score before the second review that is below 
the lowest score of applications funded after the first review; and
    (ii) That would be funded if the Secretary had 150 percent of the 
funds that were set aside for the second review of applications for the 
competition.
    (e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary's determination of whether 
the applicant has met the requirements for a second review and the 
Secretary's decision on re-scoring of an application are final and not 
subject to further appeal or challenge.
    (2) An application that scored below the established funding band 
for the competition is not eligible for a second review.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW6.)


(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)


    116. Section 647.30 amended by:
    A. In paragraph (b), removing the amount ``$2,400'' and, adding, in 
its place, the amount ``$2,800''.
    B. Revising paragraph (d).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  647.30  What are allowable costs?

* * * * *
    (d) Purchase, lease, or rental of computer hardware, computer 
software, or other equipment for participant development, project 
administration, or project recordkeeping.
    117. Section 647.32 is amended by adding an OMB control number 
parenthetical following paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  647.32  What other requirements must a grantee meet?

* * * * *

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1840-NEW11.)


* * * * *

PART 694--GAINING EARLY AWARENESS AND READINESS FOR UNDERGRADUATE 
PROGRAMS (GEAR UP)

    118. The authority citation for part 694 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21 to 1070a-28.

    119. Section 694.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a), 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  694.1  What is the maximum amount that the Secretary may award 
each fiscal year to a Partnership or a State under this program?

    (a) Partnership grants. The Secretary may establish the maximum 
amount that may be awarded each fiscal year for a GEAR UP Partnership 
grant in a notice published in the Federal Register. The maximum amount 
for which a Partnership may apply may not exceed the lesser of the 
maximum amount established by the Secretary, if applicable, or the 
amount calculated by multiplying--
* * * * *
    120. Section 694.4 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  694.4  Which students must a State or Partnership serve when 
there are changes in the cohort?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Must continue to provide GEAR UP services to at least those 
students in the cohort who attend one or more participating schools 
that together enroll a substantial majority of the students in the 
cohort.
* * * * *
    121. Section 694.7 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  694.7  What are the matching requirements for a GEAR UP grant?

    (a) In order to be eligible for GEAR UP funding--
    (1) An applicant must state in its application the percentage of 
the cost of the GEAR UP project the applicant will provide for each 
year from non-Federal funds, subject to the requirements in paragraph 
(b) of this section; and
    (2) A grantee must make substantial progress towards meeting the 
matching percentage stated in its approved application for each year of 
the project period.
    (b) Except as provided in Sec. Sec.  694.8 and 694.9, the non-
Federal share of the cost of the GEAR UP project must be not less than 
50 percent of the total cost of the project (i.e., one dollar of non-
Federal contributions for every one dollar of Federal funds obligated 
for the project) over the project period.
    (c) The non-Federal share of the cost of a GEAR UP project may be 
provided in cash or in-kind.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-23)


    122. Part 694 is amended by redesignating Sec. Sec.  694.8, 694.9, 
694.10, 694.11, 694.12, 694.13, and 694.15 as follows:

[[Page 13903]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Old section                          New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   694.8                         Sec.   694.10
Sec.   694.9                         Sec.   694.11
Sec.   694.10                        Sec.   694.13
Sec.   694.11                        Sec.   694.15
Sec.   694.12                        Sec.   694.17
Sec.   694.13                        Sec.   694.18
Sec.   694.15                        Sec.   694.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     123. New Sec.  694.8 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  694.8  Under what conditions may the Secretary approve a request 
from a Partnership applying for a GEAR UP grant to waive a portion of 
the matching requirement?

    (a) The Secretary may approve a Partnership applicant's request for 
a waiver of up to 75 percent of the matching requirement for up to two 
years if the applicant demonstrates in its application a significant 
economic hardship that stems from a specific, exceptional, or 
uncontrollable event, such as a natural disaster, that has a 
devastating effect on the members of the Partnership and the community 
in which the project would operate.
    (b)(1) The Secretary may approve a Partnership applicant's request 
to waive up to 50 percent of the matching requirement for up to two 
years if the applicant demonstrates in its application a pre-existing 
and an on-going significant economic hardship that precludes the 
applicant from meeting its matching requirement.
    (2) In determining whether an applicant is experiencing an on-going 
economic hardship that is significant enough to justify a waiver under 
this paragraph, the Secretary considers documentation of such factors 
as:
    (i) Severe distress in the local economy of the community to be 
served by the grant (e.g., there are few employers in the local area, 
large employers have left the local area, or significant reductions in 
employment in the local area).
    (ii) Local unemployment rates that are higher than the national 
average.
    (iii) Low or decreasing revenues for State and County governments 
in the area to be served by the grant.
    (iv) Significant reductions in the budgets of institutions of 
higher education that are participating in the grant.
    (v) Other data that reflect a significant economic hardship for the 
geographical area served by the applicant.
    (3) At the time of application, the Secretary may provide tentative 
approval of an applicant's request for a waiver under paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section for all remaining years of the project period. Grantees 
that receive tentative approval of a waiver for more than two years 
under this paragraph must submit to the Secretary every two years by 
such time as the Secretary may direct documentation that demonstrates 
that--
    (i) The significant economic hardship upon which the waiver was 
granted still exists; and
    (ii) The grantee tried diligently, but unsuccessfully, to obtain 
contributions needed to meet the matching requirement.
    (c) The Secretary may approve a Partnership applicant's request in 
its application to match its contributions to its scholarship fund, 
established under section 404E of the HEA, on the basis of two non-
Federal dollars for every one Federal dollar of GEAR UP funds.
    (d) The Secretary may approve a request by a Partnership applicant 
that has three or fewer institutions of higher education as members to 
waive up to 70 percent of the matching requirement if the Partnership 
applicant includes--
    (1) A fiscal agent that is eligible to receive funds under title V, 
or Part B of title III, or section 316 or 317 of the HEA, or a local 
educational agency;
    (2) Only participating schools with a 7th grade cohort in which at 
least 75 percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price 
lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act; and
    (3) Only local educational agencies in which at least 50 percent of 
the students enrolled are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 
under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-23)


    124. New Sec.  694.9 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  694.9  Under what conditions may the Secretary approve a request 
from a Partnership that has received a GEAR UP grant to waive a portion 
of the matching requirement?

    (a) After a grant is awarded, the Secretary may approve a 
Partnership grantee's written request for a waiver of up to--
    (1) 50 percent of the matching requirement for up to two years if 
the grantee demonstrates that--
    (i) The matching contributions described for those two years in the 
grantee's approved application are no longer available; and
    (ii) The grantee has exhausted all funds and sources of potential 
contributions for replacing the matching funds.
    (2) 75 percent of the matching requirement for up to two years if 
the grantee demonstrates that matching contributions from the original 
application are no longer available due to an uncontrollable event, 
such as a natural disaster, that has a devastating economic effect on 
members of the Partnership and the community in which the project would 
operate.
    (b) In determining whether the grantee has exhausted all funds and 
sources of potential contributions for replacing matching funds, the 
Secretary considers the grantee's documentation of key factors such as 
the following and their direct impact on the grantee:
    (1) A reduction of revenues from State government, County 
government, or the local educational agency (LEA).
    (2) An increase in local unemployment rates.
    (3) Significant reductions in the operating budgets of institutions 
of higher education that are participating in the grant.
    (4) A reduction of business activity in the local area (e.g., large 
employers have left the local area).
    (5) Other data that reflect a significant decrease in resources 
available to the grantee in the local geographical area served by the 
grantee.
    (c) If a grantee has received one or more waivers under this 
section or under Sec.  694.8, the grantee may request an additional 
waiver of the matching requirement under this section no earlier than 
60 days before the expiration of the grantee's existing waiver.
    (d) The Secretary may grant an additional waiver request for up to 
50 percent of the matching requirement for a period of up to two years 
beyond the expiration of any previous waiver.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-23)


    125. New Sec.  694.12 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  694.12  Under what conditions do State and Partnership GEAR UP 
grantees make section 404E scholarship awards?

    (a)(1) State Grantees. All State grantees must establish or 
maintain a financial assistance program that awards section 404E 
scholarships to students in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  
694.13 or Sec.  694.14, as applicable.
    (2) Partnership Grantees. Partnerships may, but are not required, 
to award scholarships to eligible students. If a Partnership awards 
scholarships to eligible students pursuant to section 404E of the HEA, 
it must comply with the requirements of Sec.  694.13 or Sec.  694.14, 
as applicable.
    (b)(1) Section 404E scholarship awards for grantees whose initial 
GEAR UP grant awards were made prior to August 14, 2008. A State or 
Partnership grantee making section 404E

[[Page 13904]]

scholarship awards using funds from GEAR UP grant awards that were made 
prior to August 14, 2008, must provide such scholarship awards in 
accordance with the requirements of Sec.  694.13 unless it elects to 
provide the scholarships in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  
694.14 pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (2) Election to use Sec.  694.14 requirements. A State or 
Partnership grantee making section 404E scholarship awards using funds 
from GEAR UP grant awards that were made prior to August 14, 2008, may 
provide such scholarship awards in accordance with the requirements of 
Sec.  694.14 (rather than the requirements of Sec.  694.13) provided 
that the grantee--
    (i) Informs the Secretary, in writing, of its election to make the 
section 404E scholarship awards in accordance with the requirements of 
Sec.  694.14; and
    (ii) Such election does not decrease the amount of the scholarship 
promised to any individual student under the grant.
    (c) Section 404E scholarship awards for grantees whose initial GEAR 
UP grant awards were made on or after August 14, 2008. A State or 
Partnership grantee making section 404E scholarship awards using funds 
from GEAR UP grant awards that were made on or after August 14, 2008, 
must provide such scholarship awards in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  694.14.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-25)


    126. Newly redesignated Sec.  694.13 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  694.13  What are the requirements concerning section 404E 
scholarship awards for grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were 
made prior to August 14, 2008?

    The following requirements apply to section 404E scholarship awards 
for grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were made prior to 
August 14, 2008 unless the grantee elects to provide such scholarship 
awards in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  694.14 pursuant to 
Sec.  694.12(b)(2).
    (a)(1) The maximum scholarship amount that an eligible student may 
receive under this section must be established by the grantee.
    (2) The minimum scholarship amount that an eligible student 
receives in a fiscal year pursuant to this section must not be less 
than the lesser of--
    (i) 75 percent of the average cost of attendance for an in-State 
student, in a four-year program of instruction, at public institutions 
of higher education in the student's State; or
    (ii) The maximum Federal Pell Grant award funded under section 401 
of the HEA for the award year in which the scholarship is awarded.
    (3) If an eligible student who is awarded a GEAR UP scholarship 
attends an institution of higher education on a less than full-time 
basis during any award year, the State or Partnership awarding the GEAR 
UP scholarship may reduce the scholarship amount, but in no case may 
the percentage reduction in the scholarship be greater than the 
percentage reduction in tuition and fees charged to that student.
    (b) Scholarships provided under this section may not be considered 
for the purpose of awarding Federal grant assistance under title IV of 
the HEA, except that in no case may the total amount of student 
financial assistance awarded to a student under title IV of the HEA 
exceed the student's total cost of attendance.
    (c) Grantees providing section 404E scholarship awards in 
accordance with this section--
    (1) Must award GEAR UP scholarships first to students who will 
receive, or are eligible to receive, a Federal Pell Grant during the 
award year in which the GEAR UP scholarship is being awarded; and
    (2) May, if GEAR UP scholarship funds remain after awarding 
scholarships to students under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, award 
GEAR UP scholarships to other eligible students (i.e., students who are 
not eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant) after considering the 
need of those students for GEAR UP scholarships.
    (d) For purposes of this section, an eligible student is a student 
who--
    (1) Is less than 22 years old at the time of award of the student's 
first GEAR UP scholarship;
    (2) Has received a secondary school diploma or its recognized 
equivalent on or after January 1, 1993;
    (3) Is enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a program of 
undergraduate instruction at an institution of higher education that is 
located within the State's boundaries, except that, at the grantee's 
option, a State or Partnership may offer scholarships to students who 
attend institutions of higher education outside the State; and
    (4) Has participated in activities under Sec.  694.21 or Sec.  
694.22.
    (e) A State using a priority approach may award scholarships under 
paragraph (a) of this section to eligible students identified by 
priority at any time during the grant award period rather than 
reserving scholarship funds for use only in the seventh year of a 
project or after the grant award period.
    (f) A State or a Partnership that makes scholarship awards from 
GEAR UP funds in accordance with this section must award continuation 
scholarships in successive award years to each student who received an 
initial scholarship and who is enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a 
program of undergraduate instruction at an institution of higher 
education.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21 to 1070a-28)


    127. New Sec.  694.14 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  694.14  What are the requirements concerning section 404E 
scholarship awards for grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were 
made on or after August 14, 2008?

    The following requirements apply to section 404E scholarship awards 
provided by grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were made on or 
after August 14, 2008 and any section 404E scholarship awards for 
grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were issued prior to August 
14, 2008, but who, pursuant to Sec.  694.12(b)(2), elected to use the 
Sec.  694.14 requirements (rather than the Sec.  694.13 requirements).
    (a)(1) The maximum scholarship amount that an eligible student may 
receive under section 404E of the HEA must be established by the 
grantee.
    (2) The minimum scholarship amount that an eligible student 
receives in a fiscal year must not be less than the minimum Federal 
Pell Grant award under section 401 of the HEA at the time of award.
    (3) If an eligible student who is awarded a GEAR UP scholarship 
attends an institution of higher education on a less than full-time 
basis during any award year, the State or Partnership awarding the GEAR 
UP scholarship may reduce the scholarship amount, but in no case may 
the percentage reduction in the scholarship be greater than the 
percentage reduction in tuition and fees charged to that student.
    (b) For purposes of this section, an eligible student is a student 
who--
    (1) Is less than 22 years old at the time of award of the first 
GEAR UP scholarship;
    (2) Has received a secondary school diploma or its recognized 
equivalent on or after January 1, 1993;
    (3) Is enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a program of 
undergraduate instruction at an institution of higher education that is 
located within the State's boundaries, except that, at the grantee's 
option, a State or Partnership may offer scholarships to students who 
attend

[[Page 13905]]

institutions of higher education outside the State; and
    (4) Has participated in the activities required under Sec.  694.21.
    (c)(1) By the time students who have received services from a State 
grant have completed the twelfth grade, a State that has not received a 
waiver under section 404E(b)(2) of the HEA of the requirement to spend 
at least 50 percent of its GEAR UP funds on scholarships must have in 
reserve an amount that is not less than the minimum Federal Pell Grant 
multiplied by the number of students the State estimates will enroll in 
an institution of higher education.
    (2) Consistent with paragraph (a) of this section and Sec.  
694.16(a), States must use funds held in reserve to make scholarships 
to eligible students.
    (3) Scholarships must be made to all students who are eligible 
under the definition in paragraph (b) of this section. A grantee may 
not impose additional eligibility criteria that would have the effect 
of limiting or denying a scholarship to an eligible student.
    (d) A State using a priority approach may award scholarships under 
paragraph (a) of this section to eligible students identified by 
priority at any time during the grant award period rather than 
reserving scholarship funds for use only in the seventh year of a 
project or after the grant award period.
    (e) States providing scholarships must provide information on the 
eligibility requirements for the scholarships to all participating 
students upon the students' entry into the GEAR UP program.
    (f) A State must provide scholarship funds as described in this 
section to all eligible students who attend an institution of higher 
education in the State, and may provide these scholarship funds to 
eligible students who attend institutions of higher education outside 
the State.
    (g) A State or a Partnership that chooses to participate in the 
scholarship component in accordance with section 404E of the HEA may 
award continuation scholarships in successive award years to each 
student who received an initial scholarship and who is enrolled or 
accepted for enrollment in a program of undergraduate instruction at an 
institution of higher education.
    (h) A GEAR UP scholarship, provided under section 404E of the HEA, 
may not be considered in the determination of a student's eligibility 
for other grant assistance provided under title IV of the HEA, except 
that in no case may the total amount of student financial assistance 
awarded to a student under title IV of the HEA exceed the student's 
total cost of attendance.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-25)


    128. Newly redesignated Sec.  694.15 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  694.15  May a Partnership that does not award scholarships under 
section 404E of the HEA provide, as part of a GEAR UP project, 
financial assistance for postsecondary education using non-Federal 
funds?

    A GEAR UP Partnership that does not participate in the GEAR UP 
scholarship component may provide financial assistance for 
postsecondary education with non-Federal funds, and those funds may be 
used to satisfy the matching requirement.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21 to 1070a-28)


    129. Section 694.16 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  694.16  What are the requirements for redistribution or return of 
scholarship funds not awarded to a project's eligible students?

    The following requirements apply only to section 404E scholarship 
awards for grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were made on or 
after August 14, 2008, and to any section 404E scholarship awards for 
grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were made prior to August 
14, 2008, but who, pursuant to Sec.  694.12(b)(2), elect to use the 
Sec.  694.14 requirements (rather than the Sec.  694.13 requirements):
    (a) Scholarship funds held in reserve by States under Sec.  
694.14(c) or by Partnerships under section 404D(b)(7) of the HEA that 
are not used by eligible students as defined in Sec.  694.14(b) within 
six years of the students' scheduled completion of secondary school may 
be redistributed by the grantee to other eligible students.
    (b) Any Federal scholarship funds that are not used by eligible 
students within six years of the students' scheduled completion of 
secondary school, and are not redistributed by the grantee to other 
eligible students, must be returned to the Secretary within 45 days 
after the six-year period for expending the scholarship funds expires.
    (c) Grantees that reserve funds for scholarships must annually 
furnish information, as the Secretary may require, on the amount of 
Federal and non-Federal funds reserved and held for GEAR UP 
scholarships and the disbursement of these scholarship funds to 
eligible students until these funds are fully expended or returned to 
the Secretary.
    (d) A scholarship fund is subject to audit or monitoring by 
authorized representatives of the Secretary throughout the life of the 
fund.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-25(e))


    130. Newly redesignated Sec.  694.18 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  694.18  What requirements must be met by a Partnership or State 
participating in GEAR UP with respect to 21st Century Scholarship 
Certificates?

    (a) A State or Partnership must provide, in accordance with 
procedures the Secretary may specify, a 21st Century Scholar 
Certificate to each student participating in its GEAR UP project.
    (b) 21st Century Scholarship Certificates must be personalized and 
indicate the amount of Federal financial aid for college and the 
estimated amount of any scholarship provided under section 404E of the 
HEA, if applicable, that a student may be eligible to receive.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-26)


    131. Newly redesignated Sec.  694.19 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  694.19  What priorities does the Secretary establish for a GEAR 
UP grant?

    The Secretary awards competitive preference priority points to an 
eligible applicant for a State grant that has both--
    (a) Carried out a successful State GEAR UP grant prior to August 
14, 2008, determined on the basis of data (including outcome data) 
submitted by the applicant as part of its annual and final performance 
reports, and the applicant's history of compliance with applicable 
statutory and regulatory requirements; and
    (b) A prior, demonstrated commitment to early intervention leading 
to college access through collaboration and replication of successful 
strategies.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21(b))


    132. New Sec.  694.20 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  694.20  When may a GEAR UP grantee provide services to students 
attending an institution of higher education?

    (a) The Secretary authorizes an eligible State or Partnership to 
provide GEAR UP services to students attending an institution of higher 
education if the State or Partnership--
    (1) Applies for and receives a new GEAR UP award after August 14, 
2008, and
    (2) In its application, requested a seventh year so that it may 
continue to provide services to students through their first year of 
attendance at an institution of higher education.
    (b) A State grantee that uses a priority (rather than or in 
addition to a cohort)

[[Page 13906]]

approach to identify participating students may, consistent with its 
approved application and at any time during the project period, provide 
services to students during their first year of attendance at an 
institution of higher education, provided that the grantee continues to 
provide all required services throughout the Federal budget period to 
GEAR UP students still enrolled in a local educational agency.
    (c) If a grantee is awarded a seven year grant, consistent with the 
grantee's approved application, during the seventh year of the grant 
the grantee--
    (1) Must provide services to students in their first year of 
attendance at an institution of higher education; and
    (2) May choose to provide services to high school students who have 
yet to graduate.
    (d) Grantees that continue to provide services under this part to 
students through their first year of attendance at an institution of 
higher education must, to the extent practicable, coordinate with other 
campus programs, including academic support services to enhance, not 
duplicate service.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21(b)(2))


    133. New Sec.  694.21 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  694.21  What are required activities for GEAR UP projects?

    A grantee must provide comprehensive mentoring, outreach, and 
supportive services to students participating in the GEAR UP program. 
These services must include the following activities:
    (a) Providing information regarding financial aid for postsecondary 
education to eligible participating students.
    (b) Encouraging student enrollment in rigorous and challenging 
curricula and coursework, in order to reduce the need for remedial 
coursework at the postsecondary level.
    (c) Implementing activities to improve the number of participating 
students who--
    (1) Obtain a secondary school diploma, and
    (2) Complete applications for, and enroll in, a program of 
postsecondary education.
    (d) In the case of a State grantee that has not received a 100-
percent waiver under section 404E(b)(2) of the HEA, providing 
scholarships in accordance with section 404E of the HEA.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-24(a))


    134. New Sec.  694.22 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  694.22  What other activities may all GEAR UP projects provide?

    A grantee may use grant funds to carry out one or more of the 
following services and activities:
    (a) Providing tutors and mentors, who may include adults or former 
participants in a GEAR UP program, for eligible students.
    (b) Conducting outreach activities to recruit priority students 
(identified in section 404D(d) of the HEA) to participate in program 
activities.
    (c) Providing supportive services to eligible students.
    (d) Supporting the development or implementation of rigorous 
academic curricula, which may include college preparatory, Advanced 
Placement, or International Baccalaureate programs, and providing 
participating students access to rigorous core academic courses that 
reflect challenging State academic standards.
    (e) Supporting dual or concurrent enrollment programs between the 
secondary school and institution of higher education partners of a GEAR 
UP Partnership, and other activities that support participating 
students in--
    (1) Meeting challenging State academic standards;
    (2) Successfully applying for postsecondary education;
    (3) Successfully applying for student financial aid; and
    (4) Developing graduation and career plans, including career 
awareness and planning assistance as they relate to a rigorous academic 
curriculum.
    (f) Providing special programs or tutoring in science, technology, 
engineering, or mathematics.
    (g) For Partnerships, providing scholarships described in section 
404E of the HEA, and for all grantees providing appropriate 
administrative support for GEAR UP scholarships.
    (h) Introducing eligible students to institutions of higher 
education, through trips and school-based sessions.
    (i) Providing an intensive extended school day, school year, or 
summer program that offers--
    (1) Additional academic classes; or
    (2) Assistance with college admission applications.
    (j) Providing other activities designed to ensure secondary school 
completion and postsecondary education enrollment of at-risk children, 
such as:
    (1) Identification of at-risk children.
    (2) After-school and summer tutoring.
    (3) Assistance to at-risk children in obtaining summer jobs.
    (4) Academic counseling.
    (5) Financial and economic literacy education or counseling.
    (6) Volunteer and parent involvement.
    (7) Encouraging former or current participants of a GEAR UP program 
to serve as peer counselors.
    (8) Skills assessments.
    (9) Personal and family counseling, and home visits.
    (10) Staff development.
    (11) Programs and activities that are specially designed for 
students who are limited English proficient.
    (k) Enabling eligible students to enroll in Advanced Placement or 
International Baccalaureate courses, or college entrance examination 
preparation courses.
    (l) Providing services to eligible students in the participating 
cohort described in Sec.  694.3 through the first year of attendance at 
an institution of higher education.
    (m) Fostering and improving parent and family involvement in 
elementary and secondary education by promoting the advantages of a 
college education, and emphasizing academic admission requirements and 
the need to take college preparation courses, through parent engagement 
and leadership activities.
    (n) Disseminating information that promotes the importance of 
higher education, explains college preparation and admission 
requirements, and raises awareness of the resources and services 
provided by the eligible entities to eligible students, their families, 
and communities.
    (o) For a GEAR UP Partnership grant, in the event that matching 
funds described in the approved application are no longer available, 
engaging other potential partners in a collaborative manner to provide 
matching resources and to participate in other activities authorized in 
Sec. Sec.  694.21, 694.22, and 694.23.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-24(b))


    135. New Sec.  694.23 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  694.23  What additional activities are allowable for State GEAR 
UP projects?

    In addition to the required and permissible activities identified 
in Sec. Sec.  694.21 and 694.22, a State may use grant funds to carry 
out one or more of the following services and activities:
    (a) Providing technical assistance to--
    (1) Secondary schools that are located within the State; or
    (2) Partnerships that are eligible to apply for a GEAR UP grant and 
that are located within the State.
    (b) Providing professional development opportunities to individuals 
working with eligible cohorts of students.

[[Page 13907]]

    (c) Providing administrative support to help build the capacity of 
Partnerships to compete for and manage grants awarded under the GEAR UP 
program.
    (d) Providing strategies and activities that align efforts in the 
State to prepare eligible students to attend and succeed in 
postsecondary education, which may include the development of 
graduation and career plans.
    (e) Disseminating information on the use of scientifically valid 
research and best practices to improve services for eligible students.
    (f)(1) Disseminating information on effective coursework and 
support services that assist students in achieving the goals described 
in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section, and
    (2) Identifying and disseminating information on best practices 
with respect to--
    (i) Increasing parental involvement; and
    (ii) Preparing students, including students with disabilities and 
students who are limited English proficient, to succeed academically 
in, and prepare financially for, postsecondary education.
    (g) Working to align State academic standards and curricula with 
the expectations of postsecondary institutions and employers.
    (h) Developing alternatives to traditional secondary school that 
give students a head start on attaining a recognized postsecondary 
credential (including an industry-recognized certificate, an 
apprenticeship, or an associate's or a bachelor's degree), including 
school designs that give students early exposure to college-level 
courses and experiences and allow students to earn transferable college 
credits or an associate's degree at the same time as a secondary school 
diploma.
    (i) Creating community college programs for individuals who have 
dropped out of high school that are personalized drop-out recovery 
programs, and that allow drop-outs to complete a secondary school 
diploma and begin college-level work.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-24)


    136. New Sec.  694.24 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  694.24  What services may a GEAR UP project provide to students 
in their first year at an institution of higher education?

    Consistent with their approved applications and Sec.  694.20, a 
grantee may provide any services to students in their first year of 
attendance at an institution of higher education that will help those 
students succeed in school, and that do not duplicate services 
otherwise available to them. Examples of services that may be provided 
include--
    (a) Orientation services including introduction to on-campus 
services and resources;
    (b) On-going counseling to students either in person or though 
electronic or other means of correspondence;
    (c) Assistance with course selection for the second year of 
postsecondary education;
    (d) Assistance with choosing and declaring an academic major;
    (e) Assistance regarding academic, social, and personal areas of 
need;
    (f) Referrals to providers of appropriate services;
    (g) Tutoring, mentoring, and supplemental academic support;
    (h) Assistance with financial planning;
    (i) Career counseling and advising services; or
    (j) Advising students about transferring to other schools.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-24)


    137. New Sec.  694.25 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  694.25  Are GEAR UP grantees required to provide services to 
students who were served under a previous GEAR UP grant?

    If a Partnership or State is awarded a GEAR UP grant on or after 
August 14, 2008 (i.e., initial grant), the grant ends before all 
students who received GEAR UP services under the grant have completed 
the twelfth grade, and the grantee receives a new award in a subsequent 
GEAR UP competition (i.e., new grant), the grantee must--
    (a) Continue to provide services required by or authorized under 
Sec. Sec.  694.21, 694.22, and 694.23 to all students who received GEAR 
UP services under the initial grant and remain enrolled in secondary 
schools until they complete the twelfth grade; and
    (b) Provide the services specified in paragraph (a) of this section 
by using Federal GEAR UP funds awarded for the new grant or funds from 
the non-Federal matching contribution required under the new grant.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-21(b)(3)(B) and 1070a-22(d)(1)(C))


[FR Doc. 2010-4869 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>