13814 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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, firstgeneration college students, and 

individuals with disabilities to enter 

and complete secondary and 

postsecondary programs of study and 

enroll in graduate programs, and a 

training program for project staff 

working in one or more of the Federal 

TRIO programs. The purpose of the 

GEAR UP program is to increase the 

number of low-income students who are 

prepared to enter and succeed in 

postsecondary education. 

These proposed regulations are 

needed to implement provisions of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (HEA) by the Higher 

Education Opportunity Act of 2008 

(HEOA) that relate to the HEP and 

CAMP, Federal TRIO, and GEAR UP 

programs. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before April 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by e-mail. Please 

submit your comments only one time, in 

order to ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit 

your comments electronically. 

Information on using Regulations.gov, 

including instructions for accessing 

agency documents, submitting 

comments, and viewing the docket, is 

available on the site under ‘‘How To Use 

This Site.’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

regulations, address them to Pamela 

Maimer, U.S. Department of Education, 

1990 K Street, NW., Room 8014, 

Washington, DC 20006–8014. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s policy for 

comments received from members of the 

public (including those comments submitted 

by mail, commercial delivery, or hand 

delivery) is to make these submissions 

available for public viewing in their entirety 

on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters 

should be careful to include in their 

comments only information that they wish to 

make publicly available on the Internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information, Pamela J. Maimer, 

U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K 

Street, NW., Room 8014, Washington, 

DC 20006–8014. Telephone: (202) 502– 

7704 or via the Internet at: 

Pamela.Maimer@ed.gov. 

For information related to HEP and 

CAMP issues, Nathan Weiss, U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of 

Migrant Education, 400 Maryland Ave. 

SW., Room 3E–321, Washington, DC 

20202–6135. Telephone: (202) 260–7496 

or via the Internet at: 

Nathan.Weiss@ed.gov. 

For information related to Federal 

TRIO issues, Frances Bergeron, U.S. 

Department of Education, 1990 K Street, 

NW., room 7059, Washington, DC 

20006–7059. Telephone: (202) 502–7528 

or via the Internet at 

Frances.Bergeron@ed.gov. 

For information related to GEAR UP 

issues, James Davis, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 

6109, Washington, DC 20006–6109. 

Telephone: (202) 502–7802 or via the 

Internet at: James.Davis@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf, 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13815 

for this type of aid, please contact one 

of the persons listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Negotiated Rulemaking 

Section 492 of the HEA requires the 

Secretary, before publishing any 

proposed regulations for programs 

authorized by Title IV of the HEA, to 

obtain public involvement in the 

development of the proposed 

regulations. After obtaining advice and 

recommendations from the public, 

including individuals and 

representatives of groups involved in 

the discretionary grant programs 

authorized under title IV of the HEA, 

the Secretary must subject the proposed 

regulations to a negotiated rulemaking 

process. All proposed regulations that 

the Department publishes on which the 

negotiators reached consensus must 

conform to final agreements resulting 

from that process unless the Secretary 

reopens the process or provides a 

written explanation to the participants 

stating why the Secretary has decided to 

depart from the agreements. Further 

information on the negotiated 

rulemaking process can be found at: 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/ 

hea08/index.html. 

On December 31, 2008, the 

Department published a notice in the 

Federal Register (73 FR 80314) 

announcing our intent to establish five 

negotiated rulemaking committees to 

prepare proposed regulations. One 

committee would focus on issues 

related to lender and general loan issues 

(Team I—Loans-Lender General Loan 

Issues). A second committee would 

focus on school-based loan issues (Team 

II—Loans-School-based Loan Issues). A 

third committee would focus on 

accreditation (Team III—Accreditation). 

A fourth committee would focus on 

discretionary grants (Team IV— 

Discretionary Grants). A fifth committee 

would focus on general and non-loan 

programmatic issues (Team V—General 

and Non-Loan Programmatic Issues). 

The notice requested nominations of 

individuals for membership on the 

committees who could represent the 

interests of key stakeholder 

constituencies on each committee. 

This NPRM reflects the work of Team 

IV—Discretionary Grants (Team IV) 

which met to develop proposed 

regulations during the months of 

February through April, 2009. This 

NPRM proposes regulations relating to 

the administration of the HEP and 

CAMP, TRIO, and GEAR UP 

discretionary grants programs. 

The Department developed a list of 

proposed regulatory provisions based on 

the provisions contained in the HEOA 

and from advice and recommendations 

submitted by individuals and 

organizations as testimony to the 

Department in a series of six public 

hearings held on— 

• September 19, 2008, at the Texas 

Christian University, in Fort Worth, 

Texas; 

• September 29, 2008, at the 

University of Rhode Island, in 

Providence, Rhode Island; 

• October 2, 2008, at the Pepperdine 

University, in Malibu, California; 

• October 6, 2008, at Johnson C. 

Smith University, in Charlotte, North 

Carolina; 

• October 8, 2008, at the U.S. 

Department of Education, in 

Washington DC; and 

• October 15, 2008, at Cuyahoga 

Community College, in Warrensville 

Heights, Ohio. 

In addition, the Department accepted 

written comments on possible 

regulatory provisions submitted directly 

to the Department by interested parties 

and organizations. A summary of all 

comments received orally and in writing 

is posted as background material in the 

docket for this NPRM. Transcripts of the 

regional meetings can be accessed at 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/ 

hea08/index.html. 

Staff within the Department also 

identified additional issues for 

discussion and negotiation. 

At its first meeting, Team IV reached 

agreement on its protocols. These 

protocols provided that for each 

community of interest identified as 

having interests that were significantly 

affected by the subject matter of the 

negotiations, the non-Federal 

negotiators would represent the 

organizations listed after their names in 

the protocols in the negotiated 

rulemaking process. 

The Discretionary Grant Team IV 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee 

included the following members: 

Representing the TRIO Programs 

• David Megquier and Maureen 

Hoyler (alternate), Council for 

Opportunity in Education. 

• Charlene Manco and Larry 

Letourneau (alternate), National 

Educational Opportunities Association. 

• Laura Qaissaunee and R. Renee 

Hampton (alternate), American 

Association of Community Colleges. 

• Jon Westby, Minneapolis 

Community and Technical College and 

Mike Henry, Southwest Virginia 

Community College (alternate), 

representing TRIO two-year institutions. 

• Deltha Q. Colvin, The Wichita State 

University and Troy Johnson, University 

of North Texas (alternate), representing 

TRIO four-year institutions. 

• Brenda Dann-Messier, Dorcas Place 

Adult & Family Learning Center, 

representing TRIO community 

organizations. 

Representing the GEAR UP Program 

• Teena L. Olszewski, Northern 

Arizona University, Allison G. Jones, 

The California State University, and 

Weiya Liang, Washington Higher 

Education Coordinating Board 

(alternate), representing GEAR UP fouryear institutions. 

• Louis Niro, Cuyahoga Community 

College, representing GEAR UP two-year 

institutions. 

• Jennifer Martin and Karen 

McCarthy (alternate), National 

Association of Student Financial Aid 

Administrators. 

• Linda Shiller, Vermont Student 

Assistance Corporation representing 

GEAR UP State grantees. 

Representing the HEP and CAMP 

Programs 

• Arturo Martinez and Javier 

Gonzalez (alternate), The National HEP/ 

CAMP Association. 

Representing Students 

• Cedric Lawson, United Council of 

University of Wisconsin, and Gregory A. 

Cendana (alternate), United States 

Student Association. 

Representing the Federal Government 

• Lynn Mahaffie, U.S. Department of 

Education. 

Team IV’s protocols also provided 

that, unless agreed to otherwise, 

consensus on all of the amendments in 

the proposed regulations had to be 

achieved for consensus to be reached on 

the entire NPRM. Consensus means that 

there must be no dissent by any 

member. 

During the meetings, Team IV 

reviewed and discussed drafts of 

proposed regulations. At the final 

meeting in April 2009, the team reached 

tentative agreement on the proposed 

regulations for the HEP, CAMP and 

GEAR UP programs as well as on many 

of the proposed TRIO program 

regulations. However, some non-Federal 

negotiators did not agree to the 

Department’s proposed regulations 

relating to the use of Talent Search 

grants to pay tuition for students to take 

courses and the proposed regulations to 

implement the new statutory 

requirement for a second review of 

unsuccessful applications for TRIO 

grants. Because the committee did not 

agree on the proposed regulations for 

the TRIO programs, Team IV did not 

reach consensus on the proposed 

regulations in this NPRM. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13816 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

We propose to accept changes that 

reflect the tentative agreements made in 

the negotiation sessions for the HEP, 

CAMP, and GEAR UP programs in their 

entirety. In the TRIO proposed 

regulations, we accepted many of the 

changes tentatively agreed to in the 

negotiation sessions. 

More information on the work of 

Team IV can be found at http:// 

www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/ 

hearulemaking/2009/grants.html. 

Summary of Proposed Changes 

These proposed regulations would 

implement changes made by the HEOA 

to discretionary grant programs 

authorized by title IV of the HEA, 

including: 

HEP and CAMP Programs 

• Expanding eligibility for HEP and 

CAMP to allow students to qualify for 

the program through their own 

qualifying work, or that of an immediate 

family member, rather than only 

through their own work or that of a 

parent, as the statute previously held 

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

• Defining the term immediate family 

member to include only individuals 

who are dependent upon a migrant or 

seasonal farmworker (see section 

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

• Revising the definition of the term 

seasonal farmworker to clarify that the 

individual’s primary employment in 

migrant and seasonal farmwork must 

occur for at least 75 days within the past 

24 months (see section 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) 

of the HEA). 

• Amending the authorized HEP 

services section to (1) Provide that 

permissible HEP services include 

preparation for college entrance 

examinations; (2) provide that 

permissible HEP services include all 

stipends—not only weekly stipends— 

for HEP participants; (3) add 

transportation and child care as 

examples of essential supportive 

services; and (4) specify that HEP 

services include other activities to 

improve persistence and retention in 

postsecondary education (see section 

418A(b) of the HEA). 

• Amending the authorized CAMP 

services section to specify that (1) 

Permissible CAMP services include 

supportive and instructional services to 

improve placement, persistence, and 

retention in postsecondary education; 

(2) these supportive services include 

personal, academic, career, economic 

education, or personal finance 

counseling as an ongoing part of the 

program, and (3)permissible CAMP 

services include internships (see section 

418A(c)(1) of the HEA). 

• Amending the follow-up CAMP 

services section to include (1) referring 

CAMP students to on-campus or offcampus providers of counseling 

services, academic assistance, or 

financial aid, and coordinating those 

services, assistance, and aid with other 

non-program services, assistance, and 

aid, including services, assistance, and 

aid provided by community-based 

organizations, which may include 

mentoring and guidance, and (2) for 

students attending two-year institutions 

of higher education, encouraging the 

students to transfer to four-year 

institutions of higher education, where 

appropriate, and monitoring the rate of 

transfer of these students (see section 

418A(c)(2) of the HEA). 

• Amending the minimum allocation 

for HEP and CAMP grants to provide 

that the Secretary must not allocate an 

amount less than $180,000 (see section 

418A(e) of the HEA). 

• Adding to the HEP and CAMP 

program regulations the criteria the 

Department considers in evaluating 

prior experience (see section 418A(f) of 

the HEA). 

Federal TRIO Programs 

The HEOA made a number of 

significant changes to the Federal TRIO 

programs that necessitate changes to the 

current regulations. The statutory 

changes to the TRIO programs include: 

• Amending or adding definitions for 

different campus and different 

population, which change current 

regulatory definitions of these terms for 

the SSS program and current practice 

with regard to the number of 

applications an eligible entity may 

submit under each of the TRIO 

programs (see section 402A(h)(1) and 

(h)(2) of the HEA). 

• Amending the services or activities 

that projects funded under the Federal 

TRIO programs must provide and 

services or activities that these projects 

may provide (see section 402B(b) and (c) 

(TS); section 402C(b), (c) and (d) (UB); 

section 402D(b) and (c) (SSS); section 

402E(b) and (c) (McNair); section 

402F(b) (EOC); and section 402G(b) 

(Training) of the HEA). 

• Adding new categories of 

participants (foster care youth and 

homeless children and youth) for whom 

projects funded under these programs 

are to provide services (see section 

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

• Adding new outcome criteria for 

most of the TRIO programs (except for 

the Training program) which the 

Secretary must use for prior experience 

determinations: TS (see section 

402A(f)(3)(A) of the HEA); UB (see 

section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA); SSS 

(see section 402A(f)(3)(C) of the HEA); 

McNair (see section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the 

HEA); and EOC (see section 

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

• Specifying a new procedure for 

handling unsuccessful applications 

using a two-stage process (see section 

402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA). 

• Revising definitions for some terms 

and adding new regulatory definitions 

to implement amendments to the HEA 

by the HEOA: 

• Financial and economic literacy 

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

section 402C(b)(6) of the HEA (UB), 

section 402D(b)(4) of the HEA (SSS), 

section 402E(c)(1) of the HEA (McNair)), 

and section 402F(b)(5) of the HEA 

(EOC)); 

• Foster care youth and homeless 

children and youth (see sections 

402A(e)(3), 402B(c)(7) (TS), 402C(d)(7) 

(UB), 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6) (SSS), 

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

HEA (Training)). 

• Graduate center (see sections 101 

and 102 of the HEA and section 

402E(d)(2)of the HEA); groups 

underrepresented in graduate school 

(see section 402E(d)(2) of the HEA); and 

research and scholarly activities (see 

section 402E(b)of the HEA (McNair)). 

• Individual with disabilities (see 

sections 402B(c)(7) (TS), 402C(d)(7) 

(UB), 402D(a)(3) and (c)(6) (SSS), 

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

HEA (Training)). 

• Individual who has a high risk for 

academic failure and veteran who has a 

high risk for academic failure (see 

sections 402A(f)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv) and 

402C(e)(2) of the HEA). 

• Institution of higher education (see 

sections 101 and 102 of the HEA (All 

Federal TRIO programs)). 

• Regular secondary school diploma 

and rigorous secondary school program 

of study (see sections 402A(f)(3)(A)(iii) 

and (iv) and 402A(f)(3)(B) of the HEA 

(TS and UB)). 

• Veteran (see section 402A(h)(5) of 

the HEA (TS, EOC, and UB)). 

Additionally, the regulations for the 

TRIO programs need to be amended to 

reflect other changes made by the 

HEOA, other amendments to the HEA, 

and established administrative 

practices. These changes include the 

following: 

• Amending the project period for the 

TRIO programs. The proposed 

regulations would define the project 

period as five years for TS, UB, SSS, 

McNair, and two years for TRIO 

Training (see section 402A(b)(2)(B) and 

(C) of the HEA). 

• Revising the selection criteria 

related to ‘‘Objectives’’ for the following 

TRIO pre-college and college programs: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13817 

TS (see section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the 

HEA); UB (see section 402A(f)(3)(B) of 

the HEA); SSS (see section 402A(f)(3)(C) 

of the HEA); McNair (see section 

402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA); and EOC (see 

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

• Removing the minimum number of 

participants in the regulations for TS, 

EOC, UB, Upward Bound Math and 

Science, and Veterans Upward Bound 

projects (see sections 402A(f), 402A 

(b)(3), 402B, 402C, 402F of the HEA). 

For each grant competition, the 

Department will establish minimum 

numbers of participants to be served by 

a grantee through the Federal Register 

notice inviting application. 

• Revising sections of the TRIO 

Training regulations to reflect current 

law and practice regarding: (1) The need 

for the project selection criteria and the 

process for ranking applications by 

priority; (2) the use of prior experience 

points in the ranking of applications for 

funding; and (3) the number of prior 

experience points that can be earned 

(see section 402G(2) of the HEA). 

GEAR UP 

• Providing that the Secretary award 

competitive preference priority points to 

an eligible applicant for a State GEAR 

UP grant that has both carried out a 

successful State GEAR UP grant prior to 

August 14, 2008, and prior, 

demonstrated commitment to early 

intervention leading to college access 

through collaboration and replication of 

successful strategies; and specifying 

how the Department determines 

whether a State GEAR UP grant has 

been ‘‘successful’’ (see section 

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

• Explaining when a GEAR UP 

grantee is allowed to provide services to 

students attending an institution of 

higher education (see section 404A(b)(2) 

of the HEA). 

• Requiring grantees that continue to 

provide services to students through 

their first year of attendance at an 

institution of higher education, to the 

extent practicable, to coordinate with 

other campus programs in order not to 

duplicate services (see section 

404A(b)(2) of the HEA). 

• Revising the matching requirement 

to require that a GEAR UP grantee make 

substantial progress towards meeting 

the matching percentage stated in its 

approved application for each year of 

the project period. Grantees would no 

longer be required to meet the matching 

requirement each year of the project 

period (section 404C(b)(1) of the HEA). 

• Revising the regulations concerning 

the matching requirement for 

Partnerships by: (1) Providing authority 

for the Secretary to waive up to 50 to 75 

percent of the matching requirement for 

up to two years under certain 

circumstances; and (2) creating a 

multiple-tiered system for different 

types of waiver requests (see section 

404C(b)(2) of the HEA). 

• Providing for tentative approval of 

a Partnership applicant’s request for a 

50-percent waiver for the entire project 

period so that a Partnership applicant 

that meets the conditions for such a 

waiver has an opportunity to apply for 

a grant without needing to identify 

additional sources of match funding in 

the later years of the project period (see 

section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA). 

• Adding a list of required and 

allowable activities and separating these 

required and allowable activities into 

multiple regulatory sections (see section 

404D of the HEA). 

• Specifying that GEAR UP grantees 

may provide activities that support 

participating students to develop 

graduation and career plans and that 

these graduation and career plans may 

include career awareness and planning 

activities as they relate to a rigorous 

academic curriculum (see section 

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

• Clarifying that GEAR UP funds may 

be used to support the costs of 

administering a scholarship program as 

well as the costs of the scholarships 

themselves (see sections 404E(a)(1) and 

404D(b)(7) of the HEA). 

• Describing the types of services that 

a grantee may provide to students in 

their first year of attendance at an 

institution of higher education and 

listing examples of these services (see 

section 404D of the HEA). 

• Specifying the minimum amount of 

scholarship funding for an eligible 

student, and providing that the State or 

Partnership awarding the GEAR UP 

scholarship may reduce the scholarship 

amount if an eligible student who is 

awarded a GEAR UP scholarship attends 

an institution of higher education on a 

less than full-time basis during any 

award year (see section 404E(d) of the 

HEA). 

• Incorporating the statutory 

definition of the term eligible student 

(from section 404E(g) of the HEA) in the 

program regulations. 

• Specifying the amount of funds that 

State grantees that do not receive a 

waiver of the requirement that States 

must expend at least 50 percent of their 

GEAR UP funding on scholarships must 

hold in reserve for scholarships and 

how States must use these funds (see 

section 404E(e) of the HEA). 

• Clarifying that scholarships must be 

made to all students who are eligible 

under the definition in § 694.12(b) and 

that a grantee may not impose 

additional eligibility criteria that would 

have the effect of limiting or denying a 

scholarship to an eligible student (see 

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

• Requiring States awarding 

scholarships to provide information on 

the eligibility requirements for the 

scholarships to all participating 

students upon the students’ entry into 

the GEAR UP program (see section 

404E(c) of the HEA). 

• Requiring States to provide 

scholarship funds to all eligible students 

who attend an institution of higher 

education in the State, and allowing 

States to provide these scholarship 

funds to eligible students who attend 

institutions of higher education outside 

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

the HEA). 

• Specifying that a State or 

Partnership may award continuation 

scholarships in successive award years 

to each student who received an initial 

scholarship and who is enrolled or 

accepted for enrollment in a program of 

undergraduate instruction at an 

institution of higher education (see 

section 404E of the HEA). 

• Providing that a GEAR UP 

Partnership that does not participate in 

the GEAR UP scholarship component 

may provide financial assistance for 

postsecondary education using nonFederal funds obtained to comply with 

the program’s matching requirement 

(see section 404C(b) of the HEA). 

• Specifying the requirements for the 

return of scholarship funds. 

Specifically, (1) Providing that 

scholarship funds held in reserve by 

States under §§ 694.12 (b)(1) or 

694.12(c) or by Partnerships under 

section 404D(b)(7) of the HEA that are 

not used by an eligible student within 

six years of the student’s scheduled 

completion of secondary school may be 

redistributed by the grantee to other 

eligible students; (2) requiring the return 

of remaining Federal funds within 45 

days after the six-year period for 

expending the scholarship funds 

expires; (3) requiring grantees to 

annually furnish information, as the 

Secretary may require, on the amount of 

Federal and non-Federal funds reserved 

and held for GEAR UP scholarships and 

the disbursement of those funds to 

eligible students until these funds are 

fully expended or returned to the 

Secretary; and (4) providing that a 

scholarship fund under the GEAR UP 

program is subject to audit or 

monitoring by authorized 

representatives of the Secretary 

throughout the life of the fund (see 

section 404E(e)(4) of the HEA). 

• Requiring grantees that receive 

initial grant awards after the passage of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13818 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the HEOA must continue to serve 

students from a previous grant received 

by the grantee (see sec 404A(b)(3)(B) of 

the HEA). 

• Clarifying whom a grantee must 

serve if not all students in the cohort 

attend the same school after the cohort 

completes the last grade level offered by 

the school at which the cohort began to 

receive GEAR UP services (see section 

404B(d) of the HEA). 

• Specifying that 21st Century 

Scholarship Certificates are to be 

provided by the grantees (rather than by 

the Secretary to the grantees), and must 

indicate the estimated amount. 

Significant Proposed Regulations 

We group major issues according to 

subject, with appropriate sections of the 

proposed regulations referenced in 

parentheses. 

Part 206—Special Educational 

Programs for Students Whose Families 

Are Engaged in Migrant and Other 

Seasonal Farmwork—High School 

Equivalency Program and College 

Assistance Migrant Program 

HEP and CAMP Eligibility 

Statute: Sections 408(1)(A) and 

408(2)(A)(i)(I) of the HEOA amend 

sections 418A(b)(1)(B)(i) and 

418A(c)(1)(A) of the HEA, respectively, 

to expand the pool of individuals who 

may receive HEP and CAMP services 

from persons who themselves, or whose 

parents, have spent a minimum of 75 

days during the past 24 months in 

migrant and seasonal farmwork, to 

persons who themselves or whose 

immediate family have performed such 

work. The statute does not define the 

term ‘‘immediate family.’’ 

Current Regulations: Current § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 206.5 

(What definitions apply to these 

programs?) a definition of the term 

immediate family member. Specifically, 

we would redesignate current 

§ 206.5(c)(5), (c)(6), and (c)(7) as 

proposed § 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 § 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 § 206.3(a), 

rather than the statutory term 

‘‘immediate family,’’ for clarity. 

During our negotiated rulemaking 

sessions, the Department and nonFederal 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 206.5(c)(8) (current § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 206.4(a)(6) and 

(a)(7) as § 206.4(a)(7) and § 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 

§ 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) 

§ 206.10(b)(1)(iii)(B) to provide that 

permissible HEP services include 

preparation for college entrance 

examinations; (2) § 206.10(b)(1)(v) to 

provide that permissible HEP services 

include stipends—not only weekly 

stipends—for HEP participants; (3) 

§ 206.10(b)(1)(viii) to add transportation 

and child care as examples of essential 

supportive services; and (4) 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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) § 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) § 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 § 206.10(b)(2)(vi) 

as § 206.10(b)(2)(vii), and to add a new 

§ 206.10(b)(2)(vi) to clarify that 

permissible CAMP services include 

internships. We propose to amend 

newly redesignated § 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 § 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 nonprogram 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 § 206.11 

specifies the types of services that 

CAMP projects must provide. Under 

current § 206.11(a), CAMP projects must 

provide ‘‘follow-up services’’ for project 

participants after they have completed 

their first year of college. Current 

§ 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 § 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 nonprogram 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 § 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 § 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 § 206.20(b)(2) to 

provide that in applying for a HEP or 

CAMP grant, an applicant’s grant 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13820 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

application must include an annual 

budget of not less than $180,000. 

Reasons: We are proposing to revise 

current § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 206.31 is based on the language in 

previously approved application 

packages for HEP and CAMP. The nonFederal 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 § 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 programby-program basis. We group the 

crosscutting issues as follows: 

• Number of Applications an Eligible 

Entity May Submit to Serve Different 

Campuses and Different Populations. 

• Definitions Applicable to More 

Than One Federal TRIO program. 

• Evaluating Prior Experience— 

Outcome Criteria. 

• Review Process for Unsuccessful 

Federal TRIO Program Applicants. 

Our discussion of issues applicable to 

specific programs follows the order of 

the Department’s regulations for those 

programs (i.e., 34 CFR parts 642 

(Training), 643 (TS), 644 (EOC), 645 

(UB), 646 (SSS), and 647 (McNair)). 

Number of Applications an Eligible 

Entity May Submit To Serve Different 

Campuses and Different Populations 

Statute: Section 402A(c)(5) of the 

HEA, as amended by section 

403(a)(2)(C) of the HEOA, provides that 

the Secretary may not limit the number 

of applications submitted by an eligible 

entity under any Federal TRIO program 

if the additional applications describe 

programs serving different populations 

or different campuses. The HEOA 

changed section 402A(c)(5) of the HEA 

by replacing the term ‘‘campuses’’ with 

the term ‘‘different campuses’’. 

More significantly, section 403(a)(6) 

of the HEOA amended section 402A(h) 

of the HEA by adding definitions for the 

terms ‘‘different campus’’ and ‘‘different 

population’’. Section 402A(h)(1) of the 

HEA defines the term ‘‘different 

campus’’ as a site of an institution of 

higher education that is geographically 

apart from the main campus, is 

permanent in nature, and offers courses 

in educational programs leading to a 

degree, certificate, or other recognized 

educational credential. 

Section 402A(h)(2) of the HEA defines 

the term ‘‘different population’’ as a 

group of individuals that an eligible 

entity desires to serve using a Federal 

TRIO grant and that is separate and 

distinct from any other population that 

the entity has applied to serve, or a 

population that, while sharing some of 

the same needs as another population, 

has distinct needs for specialized 

services. 

Current Regulations: Only two of the 

Federal TRIO programs, the UB and SSS 

programs, have regulations that address 

the number of grant applications an 

eligible entity may submit. 

For the UB program, current 

§ 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 § 646.10 

provides that the Secretary accepts more 

than one application from an eligible 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 646.7 defines the terms 

different campus and different 

population of participants for purposes 

of the SSS program. Current § 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 § 646.7 

defines different population of 

participants as a group of (1) lowincome, 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 §§ 643.21, 644.21, 645.30 and 

645.31). Current §§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 

§ 647.7 (McNair). For the SSS program, 

we propose to amend § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§§ 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 precollege 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13822 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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 § 642.6 and §§ 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 shortterm 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 § 643.7 (TS); § 644.7 (EOC); § 645.6 

(UB); § 646.7 (SSS); and § 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 642.6 

(Training); § 643.7 (TS); § 644.7 (EOC); 

§ 645.6 (UB); and § 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 crossreference 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 642.6 (Training), § 643.7 (TS), § 644.7 

(EOC), § 645.6 (UB), and § 646.7 (SSS). 

Proposed § 642.11(b)(5), newly 

redesignated § 642.24(a)(21), and 

proposed §§ 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 §§ 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 

§ 642.6 (Training) and proposed 

§§ 643.7 (TS), 644.7 (EOC), 645.6 (UB), 

646.7 (SSS), and 647.7 (McNair)). 

Reasons: To correct obsolete crossreferences, 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 §§ 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 § 642.6 (Training), 

§ 646.7 (SSS), and § 647.7 (McNair). 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

replace the current definition of the 

term veteran in §§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13824 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 § 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 (§ 642.22(e)) 

Number of participants (4 points). 

Training objectives (8 points). 

Administrative requirements (3 

points). 

Talent Search (§ 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 

(§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13825 

proposed §§ 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 §§ 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 

§§ 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 645.32(d) (UB); 

§ 646.22(d) (SSS); and § 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 

§§ 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 § 643.22 

specifies how the Secretary evaluates PE 

for the TS program. Current § 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 § 643.22(d)(6) 

and under the regular UB and UB Math 

and Science Centers programs in 

proposed § 645.32(e)(1)(vi). Three PE 

points will be awarded for 

postsecondary completion under the 

Veterans UB program in proposed 

§ 645.32(e)(2)(v). 

For regular UB and Upward Bound 

Math and Science (UBMS), under 

proposed § 645.32(e)(1)(vi), and for 

Veterans UB, under proposed 

§ 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 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13826 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 §§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13827 

administrative error in the processing of 

an application. 

Proposed §§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 

§§ 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 rankorder 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 §§ 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 

§§ 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 

§§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13828 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

review of applications described in 

proposed §§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 642.4 to provide that 

a project period under the Training 

program is two years. 

Reasons: We are proposing to add 

§ 642.4 to the Training program 

regulations to be consistent with section 

402A(b)(2)(B) of the HEA. 

Applicable Regulations (Current § 642.4, 

Proposed § 642.5) 

Statute: None. 

Current Regulations: Current § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13829 

second review of unsuccessful TRIO 

applications would make the process 

outlined in these regulations 

unnecessary. 

Definitions (Current § 642.5, Proposed 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 642.30, Proposed § 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 § 642.30 

does not address how the Secretary 

ranks applications for the Training 

program grants. 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

redesignate current § 642.30 as § 642.20 

and modify it to allow in proposed 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 642.20 we would specify how we 

would handle a tie score. 

Evaluation of an Application for a New 

Award (Current §§ 642.30 and 642.31, 

Proposed §§ 642.20 and 642.21) 

Statute: None. 

Current Regulations: Current 

§ 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 § 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 

§§ 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 

§ 642.31(f), which is worth 25 points. 

Reasons: Current § 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 § 642.32, 

Proposed § 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 (§ 642.25) 

We discuss the statutory authority, 

current regulations, proposed 

regulations, and reasons for adding new 

§ 642.25 in the Review Process for 

Unsuccessful Federal TRIO Program 

Applicants section of the preamble. 

Amount of a Grant (§ 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13830 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 (§ 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 § 643.1 

does not reflect the changes made to the 

purposes of the TS program by the 

HEOA. 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

amend § 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 § 643.1 to the 

changes made to section 402B of the 

HEA, by the HEOA. 

Applicant Eligibility (§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 (§ 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 

§ 643.3(a)(3)(i) requires that a 

participant in a TS program have 

potential for a program of postsecondary 

education. Current § 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 § 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 

§ 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 nonFederal 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 

(§ 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 § 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 (§ 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 § 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 (§ 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 § 642.4, proposed § 642.5). 

Definitions (§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 691.16(a) 

through § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13832 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 (§ 643.10) 

We discuss the statutory authority, 

proposed regulations, and reasons for 

adding new § 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 § 643.10; Proposed 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 firstgeneration 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 firstgeneration 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 lowincome individuals and potential firstgeneration 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 (§ 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 § 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 

§ 643.20(a)(3) and to amend the wording 

in § 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 

§ 643.20(a)(2). We also are proposing to 

remove § 643.20(a)(3) because there is 

no longer any statutory authority for this 

provision. We also are proposing to 

amend § 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 (§ 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; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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’’ 

(§ 643.21(a)), ‘‘Objectives’’ (§ 643.21(b)), 

and ‘‘Plan of operation’’ (§ 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 § 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 

(§ 643.21(a)); Objectives (§ 643.21(b)); 

Plan of operation (§ 643.21(c)); and 

Applicant and community support 

(§ 643.21(d)). 

Proposed Regulations (Need for the 

project): We are proposing to amend 

§ 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 socioeconomic 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 

§ 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 nonFederal 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 nonFederal 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 § 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 § 643.24) 

We discuss the statutory authority, 

proposed regulations, and reasons for 

adding new § 643.24 in the Review 

Process for Unsuccessful Federal TRIO 

Applicants section of the preamble. 

Allowable and Unallowable Costs 

(§§ 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 § 643.30 

permits a TS project to use grant funds 

to pay certain costs. Current § 643.30(a) 

permits a grantee to pay some 

participant transportation costs. Current 

§ 643.30(f) requires a grantee to obtain 

approval from the Department to 

purchase computers and other 

equipment. Current § 643.31(a) prohibits 

the payment of tuition for participants. 

Proposed Regulations: We are 

proposing to amend § 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 § 643.30 (f) 

and add paragraph (g) to allow grantees 

to use grant funds for the purchase, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 costeffective 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 § 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 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13836 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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? (§ 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 § 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 (§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 (§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

(§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 (§ 644.2) 

Statute: Section 402A(b)(1) of the 

HEA, as amended by section 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

(§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 (§ 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 § 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 § 644.5 with section 402A(b)(2) 

of the HEA, as amended by the HEOA. 

Applicable Regulations (§ 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 

§§ 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 (§ 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 § 644.10) 

We discuss the statutory authority, 

proposed regulations, and reasons for 

adding new § 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 § 644.10, Proposed 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 (§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13838 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 644.20(a)(3) and to amend the wording 

in § 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 

§ 644.20(a)(2). We also are proposing to 

remove § 644.20(a)(3) because there is 

no longer statutory authority for this 

provision and to amend § 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 (§ 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’’ 

(§ 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’’ (§ 644.21(d)). 

Current Regulations: Current § 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 (§ 644.21(b)) and 

Applicant and community support 

(§ 644.21(d)). 

Proposed Regulations (Objectives): 

We are proposing to amend § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 § 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13839 

Review Process for Unsuccessful 

Federal TRIO Program Applicants 

(New § 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 (§ 644.30) 

Statute: The statute does not 

specifically address allowable costs in 

the EOC program. 

Current Regulations: Current § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

(§ 644.32) 

Changes to Number of Participants 

(§ 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 § 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 § 644.32(d); New 

§ 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 § 644.32(c) 

as § 644.32(b), and adding a new 

§ 644.32(c). The new § 644.32(c) would 

include some of the provisions in 

current § 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 (§ 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 communitybased organizations with experience in 

serving disadvantaged youth. 

Current Regulations: Current § 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 § 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 § 645.2, a community-based 

organization with experience in serving 

disadvantaged youth may apply. 

Reasons: We are proposing to amend 

current § 645.2 to conform to section 

402A(b)(1) of the HEA, as amended by 

the HEOA. 

Grantee Requirements (§ 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 § 645.21. In 

addition, the heading for § 645.4 is not 

descriptive of the requirements in it. 

Proposed Regulations: We are 

proposing to remove § 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 lowincome 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13840 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

this section because it duplicates 

requirements in § 645.21. 

Applicable Regulations (§ 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 (§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 691.16(a) 

through § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 (§ 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 § 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 

(§ 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 

§ 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 (§ 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 § 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 (§ 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 (§ 645.20) in the 

Number of Applications an Eligible 

Entity May Submit To Serve Different 

Campuses and Different Populations 

section of the preamble. 

Assurances (§ 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 lowincome and first-generation. The 

remaining participants could be either 

low-income individuals or firstgeneration 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 § 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13842 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

amend § 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 lowincome individuals who are potential 

first-generation college students; 

(2) The remaining participants will be 

low-income individuals, potential firstgeneration 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 lowincome 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 lowincome individuals who are potential 

first-generation college students; 

(2) The remaining participants will be 

low-income individuals, potential firstgeneration 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 § 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 (§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 645.30(a)(2). We also are proposing to 

amend § 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 (§ 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’’ (§ 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’’ (§ 645.31(d)). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13843 

Current Regulations: Current § 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 (§ 645.31(b)) and 

Applicant and community support 

(§ 645.31(d)). 

Proposed Regulations (Objectives): 

We are proposing to amend § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 (§ 645.32) 

We discuss the statutory authority, 

current regulations, proposed 

regulations, and reasons for changes to 

the PE criteria in § 645.32 in the TRIO 

Outcome Criteria—Prior Experience 

section of the preamble. 

Amount of a Grant (§ 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 § 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 (§ 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 § 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 § 645.34 with section 

402A(b)(2) of the HEA as amended by 

the HEOA. 

Review Process for Unsuccessful 

Federal TRIO Program Applicants 

(§ 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 (§ 645.40) 

Statute: The statute does not address 

the use of UB program funds to 

purchase equipment. 

Current Regulations: Current 

§ 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 § 645.40(n), 

redesignate § 645.40(o) as § 645.40(p), 

and add a new § 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 (§ 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 § 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13844 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

(§ 645.43) 

In these proposed regulations, current 

§ 645.43(a) and (b) would be removed, a 

new § 645.43(a) would be added, and 

§ 645.43(c) would be redesignated as 

§ 645.43(b). 

Changes to Number of Participants 

(Current § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 645.43(a), that would 

include some of the provisions in 

current § 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 (§ 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 

§ 646.1(c) does not reflect the changes 

made by the HEOA. 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

amend § 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 

(§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 646.4 to conform to changes made by 

the HEOA. 

Project Period (§ 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 § 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 § 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 (§ 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 

§§ 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 (§ 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 ‘‘lowincome 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 § 646.7(b) includes 

a list of the terms used in Part 646 that 

are defined in 34 CFR 77.1. Current 

§ 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 

§ 646.7(a), which includes references to 

terms defined in the HEA, would be 

removed, and the definitions of the 

terms currently listed in § 646.7(a) 

would be included in proposed 

§ 646.7(c). Current § 646.7(b) would be 

redesignated as § 646.7(a) and would 

include the list of terms defined in 34 

CFR 77.1 that apply to the SSS program. 

Finally, current § 646.7(c) would be 

redesignated as § 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 firstgeneration college student to § 646.7(c). 

Reasons: We are proposing to revise 

§ 646.7 and add the definitions for lowincome individual and a first-generation 

college student to provide for 

consistency across the regulations for 

the Federal TRIO programs. 

Number of Applications (§ 646.10) 

We discuss the statutory authority, 

current regulations, proposed 

regulations, and reasons for modifying 

§ 646.10 in the Number of Applications 

an Eligible Entity May Submit to Serve 

Different Campuses and Different 

Populations section of the preamble. 

Assurances (§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 (§ 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13846 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 (§ 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 § 646.21(b). 

Current Regulations: Current § 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 § 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 twoyear 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 § 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 

(§ 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 

(§§ 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 

§ 646.30(f) does not reflect the new 

statutory provisions. Current § 646.30(f) 

requires a grantee to obtain prior 

approval from the Secretary to use grant 

funds to purchase computers and other 

equipment. Current § 646.31(b) 

prohibits the use of program funds for 

tuition, fees, stipends, and other forms 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13847 

of direct financial support for staff and 

participants. 

Proposed Regulations: We are 

proposing to amend § 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 

(§ 646.32) 

Changes to Full-Time Director 

Requirement (§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

(§ 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 § 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 

(§ 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 § 647.4 

includes a list of permissible services 

under the program. 

Proposed Regulations: Consistent 

with section 402E(b) of the HEA, 

proposed § 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 § 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 (§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13848 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 647.7(b) 

includes outdated statutory citations to 

the definition of an educational 

institution. 

Proposed Regulations: The definition 

of graduate center in § 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 crossreferences. 

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 § 647.7(b) includes 

Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, and 

American Indian/Alaskan Native. 

Proposed Regulations: We are 

proposing to modify § 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 § 647.7. 

Proposed Regulations: Proposed 

§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 (§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13849 

changes necessitate a change in the 

grant selection criteria for ‘‘Objectives’’ 

(§ 647.21(b)). 

Current Regulations (Objectives): 

Current § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 (§ 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 

(§ 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 (§ 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 

§ 647.30(b) of the regulations the 

maximum stipend for students 

participating in research is $2,400. 

Current § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 694.1, the Secretary already 

sets a maximum award for State GEAR 

UP grants by publication of a notice in 

the Federal Register. 

Proposed § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13850 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

school that has a seventh grade and in 

which at least 50 percent of the students 

enrolled are eligible for free or reducedprice 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 694.7 

is the regulatory provision addressing 

matching fund requirements and it does 

not reflect changes made to the HEA by 

the HEOA. Current § 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, § 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 

§ 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 § 694.7(b), 

and address both reduction and waiver 

of the matching requirement in new 

proposed §§ 694.8 and 694.9. 

Reasons: The Department proposes to 

amend § 694.7 and to address reduction 

and waiver of the matching requirement 

in new proposed §§ 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 §§ 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 

§ 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 § 694.7. The Department 

also proposes to add new § 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 § 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 § 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 ongoing 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 

§ 694.7(b)(2), proposed § 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 

§ 694.8(d)(1) through (3). 

We propose to add new § 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 § 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 § 694.9(c) would provide 

that if a grantee has received one or 

more waivers under §§ 694.8 or 694.9, 

the grantee may request an additional 

waiver of the matching requirement 

under § 694.9 no earlier than 60 days 

before the expiration of the grantee’s 

existing waiver. Finally, proposed 

§ 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 §§ 694.8 and 694.9 

as §§ 694.10 and 694.11, respectively. 

We also propose to redesignate current 

§ 694.12 as § 694.17. We made no 

substantive changes to these three 

provisions when redesignating them. 

Reasons: The Department is 

proposing to add new §§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§§ 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 § 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 § 694.8 and 

provisions for Partnership grantees in 

§ 694.9 to make these provisions easier 

to follow and understand. The 

Department also is proposing to move 

the waiver provision in current 

§ 694.7(b)(2) to new § 694.8, and is 

proposing slight modifications to the 

wording of that provision so that it 

aligns with the new waiver provisions 

in proposed §§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13852 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 inState 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 § 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 § 694.10 

is the regulatory provision that specifies 

the requirements for GEAR UP 

scholarships under the HEA, as 

previously authorized. Current § 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 § 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 §§ 694.10 and 694.11 as 

proposed §§ 694.13 and 694.15. We also 

propose to add a new § 694.12 and 

§ 694.14 to address the changes made by 

section 401(c) of Public Law 111–39. 

Specifically, proposed § 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 

§ 694.13 or § 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 § 694.13 or § 694.14, as 

applicable. Consistent with section 

401(c) of Public Law 111–39, proposed 

§ 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 § 694.13 unless it (1) 

elects to provide the scholarships in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 694.14 (which governs grantees with 

initial GEAR UP awards made on or 

after August 14, 2008), and (2) pursuant 

to § 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 

§ 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 § 694.14. 

Newly redesignated § 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, § 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 inState 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 § 694.10(e) of the current 

regulations, proposed § 694.13(b) would 

provide that scholarships made in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 694.13 may not be considered for the 

purpose of awarding Federal grant 

assistance under title IV of the HEA. 

Proposed § 694.13(b), like current 

§ 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 § 694.13(c)(1) would specify 

that grantees providing section 404E 

scholarship awards in accordance with 

§ 694.13 must award GEAR UP 

scholarships first to students who will 

receive, or are eligible to receive, a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13853 

Federal Pell Grant during the award 

year in which the GEAR UP scholarship 

is being awarded. Proposed 

§ 694.13(c)(2) would specify that if a 

grantee providing section 404E 

scholarship awards in accordance with 

§ 694.13 has funds remaining after 

awarding scholarships to students under 

§ 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 

§ 694.10(b)(1) and (2) of the current 

regulations. 

Proposed § 694.13(d) would provide 

that for purposes of § 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 

§§ 694.21 or 694.22. 

Proposed § 694.13(e) (like proposed 

§ 694.14(d)) would provide that States 

using a priority approach may award 

scholarships under § 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 § 694.13(f) would provide 

that a State or a Partnership that 

provides scholarship awards in 

accordance with § 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 § 694.10(d). 

New § 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 § 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 § 694.14(b) would repeat the 

description of eligible student that we 

propose in § 694.13(d), except that the 

fourth element of proposed § 694.14(b) 

would differ from proposed 

§ 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 § 694.21 while 

the fourth element of § 694.13(d) would 

require that the student participated in 

activities under §§ 694.21 or 694.22. 

Proposed § 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 694.14(d) would specify 

that States using a priority approach 

may award scholarships under 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 694.14(h), like proposed 

§ 694.13(b) and current § 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 

§ 694.11 as § 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 

§ 694.13 and add new §§ 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 § 694.12 would 

specify under what conditions State and 

Partnership GEAR UP grantees make 

section 404E scholarship awards. 

Specifically, proposed § 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 § 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., 

§ 694.13 or § 694.14) for each group of 

grantees. 

In doing so, § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13854 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

without decreasing the amount of 

scholarship provided to individual 

students. In this regard, proposed 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 694.13(a)(3), proposed § 694.14(a)(3) 

would retain the requirement in current 

§ 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 § 694.13(d) and 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13855 

contribution. Proposed § 694.15 is 

similar to current § 694.11 with regard 

to non-Federal funds. However, 

proposed § 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 § 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 

§ 694.16, and to provide in § 694.16(a) 

that scholarship funds held in reserve 

by States under § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 694.12(b)(2), elect to meet the § 694.14 

scholarship requirements (rather than 

the § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 returnof-funds provision in proposed 

§ 694.16(b), proposed § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 694.16(b), is 

appropriate because the 45-day period is 

consistent with other Title IV, HEA 

programs. 

In addition, in proposed § 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 

§ 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 § 694.16 before 

the end of their project period. 

For similar reasons, the Department 

also proposes in § 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 § 694.13 

addresses 21st Century Scholarship 

Certificates, but does not reflect changes 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13856 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

made to section 404C(b)(2) of the HEA 

by the HEOA. 

Proposed Regulations: The 

Department is proposing to redesignate 

current § 694.13 as proposed § 694.18 

and amend newly redesignated § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 694.15 (What priorities does the 

Secretary establish for a GEAR UP 

grant?) as proposed § 694.19 to 

accommodate the proposed addition of 

other regulatory provisions, as 

discussed elsewhere in this preamble. 

Under newly redesignated § 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 

§ 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 § 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 awardmaking 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 § 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 § 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 § 694.20 

and § 694.24. Specifically, proposed 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13857 

attendance at an IHE. Proposed 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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, § 694.24 would clarify that, 

consistent with its approved 

applications and § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§§ 694.21, 694.22, 694.23, and 694.24 to 

address required and allowable 

activities. Proposed § 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 

§ 694.22 would list examples of other 

services and activities that all GEAR UP 

projects may provide. Proposed § 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 § 694.24 would describe the 

additional services that, consistent with 

proposed § 694.20 and its approved 

application, a GEAR UP project may 

provide to students in their first year of 

attendance at an IHE. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13858 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 §§ 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 § 694.21(d). 

Furthermore, in response to the 

suggestion of a non-Federal negotiator, 

we would clarify in proposed 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 694.21 and 

authorized under §§ 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 

§ 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 § 694.25 would 

apply only to recipients of new grants. 

Proposed § 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13859 

continue to provide services required by 

§ 694.21 and authorized under §§ 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 sevenyear 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 § 694.25 provides 

that only a grantee that receive both an 

initial and new award on or after August 

14, 2008, must, during the Federal 

funding period, continue to provide 

GEAR UP services to students who 

received services under the previous 

GEAR UP grant award but have not yet 

completed the twelfth grade. 

Executive Order 12866 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may (1) have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more, or adversely affect a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local or 

Tribal governments or communities in a 

material way (also referred to as an 

‘‘economically significant’’ rule); (2) 

create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impacts of 

entitlement grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

order. Pursuant to the Executive order, 

it has been determined that this 

regulatory action will have an annual 

effect on the economy of more than 

$100 million because the amount of 

government transfers provided through 

these discretionary grant programs will 

exceed that amount. Therefore, this 

action is ‘‘economically significant’’ and 

subject to OMB review under section 

3(f)(1) of the Executive order. 

The potential costs associated with 

this proposed regulatory action are 

those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering this program effectively 

and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits of this proposed regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definition, and selection 

criteria justify the costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

proposed regulatory action does not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and 

Tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

HEP and CAMP Programs 

The Secretary has concluded that 

there is no need to discuss the changes 

to the regulations for HEP and CAMP in 

the Regulatory Impact Analysis because 

the changes to regulations for these 

programs were minor. The most 

significant changes to these regulations 

address who can be considered an 

immediate family member of a migrant 

individual in order to be eligible for 

program services. The Department 

determined that providing clarity to the 

term ‘‘immediate family member’’ would 

help ensure there is a uniform standard 

of eligibility for these programs. 

Federal TRIO Programs 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

These proposed Federal TRIO 

program regulations are needed to 

implement provisions of the HEOA, 

which changed certain features of the 

TRIO program. In proposing these 

regulations, the Secretary has 

endeavored to regulate only where 

necessary, and in ways that to the extent 

possible reflect the recommendations of 

the non-Federal negotiators: 

• Number of Applications: The HEA 

stipulates that entities may submit 

multiple applications for grants under 

each TRIO program ‘‘if the additional 

applications describe programs serving 

different populations or different 

campuses.’’ The HEA, as amended by 

the HEOA, defines ‘‘different 

populations’’ and ‘‘different campuses.’’ 

• Section 643.30: Rigorous Secondary 

School Program of Study: The HEOA 

modified the HEA’s outcome criteria for 

Talent Search by adding the completion 

of a ‘‘rigorous secondary school program 

of study’’ as one of the criteria to be 

considered in calculating prior 

experience points. 

• Section 643.32: Changes to 

Minimum Number of Participants 

Served in Talent Search: In order to 

provide it with greater flexibility to 

establish the minimum number of 

participants in each TS grant 

competition, the Department proposes 

to eliminate the current regulatory 

requirement that TS projects serve a 

minimum number of individuals. 

• Sections 643.30, 644.30, 645.40, 

646.30, 647.30: Changes to Allowable 

Costs (Computer Hardware and 

Software) (TS)(EOC)(UB)(SSS)(McNair): 

The requirement that grantees must seek 

prior approval for purchases of 

computer equipment was not addressed 

in the statute. However, during 

negotiated rulemaking, negotiators 

reached a consensus that computer 

equipment and software are necessary 

costs for grantees to deliver services. 

Accordingly, the Department proposes 

to change its regulations with respect to 

the purchase of computer equipment. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

Sections 643.7, 646.7, 643.10, 644.10, 

645.20, 646.10, 647.10: Number of 

Applications: Branch Campuses and 

Different Populations 

The HEA stipulates that entities may 

submit multiple applications ‘‘if the 

additional applications describe 

programs serving different populations 

or different campuses.’’ Section 

402A(h)(1) and (2) of the HEA defines 

‘‘different campus’’ and ‘‘different 

population.’’ A ‘‘different campus’’ is 

defined as a site of an institution of 

higher education that: Is geographically 

apart from the main campus of the 

institution; is permanent in nature; and 

offers courses in educational programs 

leading to a degree, certificate, or other 

recognized credential. A ‘‘different 

population’’ is defined in section 

402A(h)(2) of the HEA as a group of 

individuals that an eligible entity 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13860 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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

Burden Calculations Estimated 

increase 

Professional Staff ...................................... (450 additional applications * 27 hours * $30 per hour) + Overhead at 50% of salary.$546,750 

Clerical Staff ............................................. (450 additional applications * 7 hours * $12 per hour) + Overhead at 50% of salary 56,700 

Use of Computer Equipment .................... 450 additional applications * ($200 for computer time + $10 for printing) .................. 94,500 

Operation Cost .......................................... 450 additional applications * $100 cost of finding and maintaining application materials.45,000 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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

Burden Calculations Estimated 

increase 

Field Reviewers ........................................ Proportional increase in field reviewers as a result of increase in applications * 

$1,100 ($1,000 honorarium, $100 for expenses).

$151,364 

Processing applications ............................ Proportional increase in staff or staff hours as a result of increase in applications ... 9,426 

Contractor logistical support for workshops, achieving prior unfunded applications, application processing, field 

reading and slate preparation.

Proportional increase in contract costs as a result of increase in applications .......... 343,807 

Staff time for conducting supervised review.Proportional increase in staff costs hours as a result of increase in applications ...... 141,382 

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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13862 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1 GAO, ‘‘Additional Efforts Could Help Education 

With its Education Goals,’’ May 2003. (http:// 

www.gao.gov/new.items/d03568.pdf). 

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. 

Section 643.32: Changes to Minimum 

Number of Participants Served in 

Talent Search 

The proposed regulations would 

remove the regulatory requirement that 

TS projects serve a minimum number of 

individuals. Current regulations require 

that any grantee receiving an award of 

$180,000 or more must serve a 

minimum of 600 individuals. The 

Department proposes to remove this 

requirement. 

The Department proposes to take this 

action to provide it flexibility in each 

competition to establish the number of 

participants, and to adjust these 

numbers in subsequent competitions 

based on experience, cost analyses, and 

other factors. 

The Department is committed to 

encouraging TS grantees to identify and 

adopt the most cost-effective strategies 

for disadvantaged youth to complete 

secondary school programs, enroll in or 

reenter education programs at the 

postsecondary level, and complete 

postsecondary education programs. The 

Department intends to design future TS 

grant competitions to achieve this 

objective. Future grant competition 

notices will set parameters that are 

consistent with the statute to encourage 

adoption of cost effective practices 

using the best available evidence. This 

may include setting a minimum number 

of program participants for each 

competition to promote adoption of 

cost-effective practices. 

The Department intends to address 

the number of participants a TS project 

will be expected to serve each year of 

the grant cycle through the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications for 

the competition. The Department also 

intends to establish a per-participant 

cost in the Federal Register notice that 

would be used to determine the amount 

of the grant for an applicant proposing 

to serve fewer participants than required 

for the minimum grant award for the 

competition. 

Sections 643.30, 644.30, 645.40, 646.30, 

647.30: Changes to Allowable Costs 

(Computer Hardware and Software) 

(TS)(EOC)(UB)(SSS)(McNair) 

Under the proposed regulations, TRIO 

projects no longer would be required to 

obtain the Secretary’s approval before 

purchasing computer and software 

equipment. This regulatory change 

would remove administrative costs 

associated with obtaining this approval. 

GEAR UP 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

The proposed GEAR UP regulations 

are needed to implement provisions of 

the HEOA, which changed certain 

features of the GEAR UP program. We 

identify those statutory changes that 

have prompted us to propose significant 

changes in regulations. In proposing 

these regulations, the Secretary has 

endeavored to regulate only where 

necessary, and in ways that to the extent 

possible reflect the recommendations of 

the non-Federal negotiators: 

• Section 694.19—Priority: Section 

404A(b)(3)(A) of the HEA now requires 

that priority be given to those States that 

have ‘‘carried out successful [GEAR UP] 

programs’’ prior to enactment of HEOA, 

and have a ‘‘prior, demonstrated 

commitment to early intervention 

leading to college access through 

collaboration and replication of 

successful strategies.’’ 

• Section 694.8—Waiver of Matching 

Requirements: Section 404C(b)(2) of the 

HEA, as amended by the HEOA, permits 

the Secretary to waive the matching 

requirement for a Partnership in whole 

or in part if, at the time of application, 

the Partnership (a) demonstrates 

significant economic hardship that 

precludes it from meeting the matching 

requirement, or requests that its 

contributions to the scholarship fund 

under section 404E of the HEA be 

matched on a two-for-one basis. Section 

404C(b)(2) of the HEA also permits the 

Secretary to waive the matching 

requirement for any Partnership grantee 

that demonstrates that the matching 

funds described in its application are 

not available, and that it has exhausted 

all revenues for replacing these 

matching funds. 

• Sections § 694.12 and § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13863 

provide this minimum award to all 

GEAR UP students enrolled in an IHE. 

This statutory change led the 

Department to revisit its current 

regulations governing the provision of 

continuation scholarships. 

• Section § 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 § 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 

§ 694.8(c) simply repeats this statutory 

provision.) 

The proposed regulations that would 

govern waiver requests by applicants 

(proposed § 694.8) and by grantees 

(proposed § 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 preexisting 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 § 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 nonFederal 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 

§§ 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 

§§ 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 nonFederal 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 inkind matching contributions. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13864 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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 § 694.10(d) from proposed 

§ 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 

§ 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 forprofit 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 §§ 642.21, 642.22, and 

642.25 of the Training Program for 

Federal TRIO Programs (Training) 

regulations; §§ 643.21, 643.22, 643.24 

and 643.32 of the Talent Search (TS) 

regulations; §§ 644.21, 644.22, and 

644.24 of the Educational Opportunity 

Centers (EOC) regulations; §§ 645.31; 

645.32, and 645.35 of the Upward 

Bound (UB) regulations; §§ 646.21, 

646.22, 646.24, and 646.33 of the 

Student Support Services (SSS) 

regulations; §§ 647.21, 647.22 and 

647.24 of the Ronald E. McNair 

Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program 

(McNair); and §§ 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 § 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, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13866 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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: §§ 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 §§ 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: 

§§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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: §§ 645.31(b) (Objectives) and 

645.31(d)(2) (Applicant and community 

support). The revised selection criteria 

would replace existing criteria in 

§§ 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 § 646.21(b) 

(Objectives). The revised selection 

criteria will replace existing criteria. 

Further, the revised § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13868 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 647.21(b) 

(Objectives). The revised selection 

criteria would replace the current 

criteria in § 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 

§ 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 § 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13870 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 preexisting 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13871 

Regulation section Information section Collection OMB Control No. 

Sections 642.21 and 642.25 

(Training).

The proposed regulations would amend the selection 

criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application 

for a Training grant. The proposed regulations also 

would add a new section that establishes processes 

and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications. 

1840–NEW1 (Training) This is a new collection. The 

Department has submitted the new application form 

for public comment to be used for the next competition for 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 selection 

criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application 

for a TS grant. The proposed regulations also would 

add a new section that establishes processes and 

procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications. 

1840–NEW2 (TS) This would be a new collection. A 

separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form prior to the 

next 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 selection 

criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application 

for an EOC grant. The proposed regulations also 

would add a new section that establishes processes 

and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications. 

1840–NEW3 (EOC) This would be a new collection. A 

separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form prior to the 

next 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 selection 

criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application 

for a UB grant. 

The proposed regulations also would add a new section that establishes processes and procedures for a 

review of unsuccessful applications. 

1840–NEW4 (UB) This would be a new collection. A 

separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form prior to the 

next 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13872 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Regulation section Information section Collection OMB Control No. 

Sections 646.11; 646.21 and 

646.24 (SSS).

The proposed regulations would amend the selection 

criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application 

for a SSS grant and amend the assurance and other 

information an applicant must include in its application. 

The proposed regulations also would add a new section that establishes processes and procedures for a 

review of unsuccessful applications. 

1840–NEW5 (SSS) This would be a new collection. A 

separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form prior to the 

next competition for new grants scheduled for fall 

2013. 

The Department does not 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 selection 

criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application 

for a McNair grant. 

The proposed regulations also would add a new section that establishes processes and procedures for a 

review of unsuccessful applications. 

1840–NEW6 (McNair) This would be a new collection. 

A separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be 

published to solicit comments on this form prior to 

the next 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 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 prior experience (PE) criteria the Secretary uses to award PE 

points. 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 

annual performance report. 

1894–0003 (Training) The Department would continue 

to use the Department’s generic performance report 

for the Training program. Proposed changes would 

be editorial in nature. 

There would be no increase in estimated burden hours. 

Sections 643.22 (TS) and 

643.32.

The proposed regulations would amend the prior experience (PE) criteria the Secretary uses to award PE 

points. 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 

annual performance report. 

The proposed regulations also amend the recordkeeping requirements for TS. 

1840–NEW7 (TS) 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 TS grants. 

The revised APR is needed for fall 2012 data collection. 

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 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13873 

Regulation section Information section Collection OMB Control No. 

Section 644.22 (EOC) .......... The proposed regulations would amend the prior experience (PE) criteria the Secretary uses to award PE 

points. 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 

annual performance report. 

1840–NEW8 (EOC) 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 EOC grants. The revised 

APR is needed for fall 2012 data 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 prior experience (PE) criteria the Secretary uses to award PE 

points. 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 

annual performance report. 

1840–NEW9 (UB) 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 UB grants. The revised 

APR is needed for fall 2012 or 2013 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 prior experience (PE) criteria the Secretary uses to award PE 

points. 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 

annual performance report. 

The proposed regulations also add a new section on 

matching requirements for SSS. 

1840–NEW10 (SSS) 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 SSS grants. The revised 

APR is needed for fall 2011 data collection. 

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 prior experience (PE) criteria the Secretary uses to award PE 

points. 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 

annual performance report. 

1840–NEW11 (McNair) 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 McNair grants. The revised APR is needed for fall 2012 or 2013 data collection. 

The proposed regulatory amendments to the PE criteria, which address statutory requirements for longterm 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13874 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Regulation section Information section Collection OMB Control No. 

694.7, 694.8, and 694.9 

GEAR UP.

The proposed regulations would provide that an applicant for GEAR UP funding must state in its application the percentage of the cost of the GEAR UP 

project that the application will provide from non-Federal funds. 

The proposed regulations also would provide that the 

Secretary may waive a portion of the matching requirement in response to a written request for a waiver of the match. This written request can be included 

in the application or submitted separately. 

The proposed regulations also would provide the conditions that must be met for the Secretary to approve a 

request to waive a portion of the matching requirement. 

1840–NEW12 This would be a new collection. A separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form prior to the 

next competition for new grants scheduled for fall 

2010. 

There would be an estimated burden increase of 6,250 

hours. 

1840–NEW13 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 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 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 furnish information on the amount of any 

Federal and non-Federal funds reserved and held for 

GEAR UP scholarships and the disbursement of 

these scholarship funds until these funds are fully expended or returned to the Secretary. 

1840–NEW13 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 increase of 8,760 

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 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 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. 

1840–NEW12 This would be a new collection. A separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form prior to the 

next competition for new grants scheduled for fall 

2010. 

There would be an estimated 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13875 

Regulation section Information section Collection OMB Control No. 

694.20 .................................. 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. 

1840–NEW12 This would be a new collection. A separate 30-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit comments on this form prior to the 

next competition for new grants 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 email to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or 

by fax to (202) 395–6974. You may also 

send a copy of these comments to the 

Department contact named in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

We consider your comments on these 

proposed collections of information in— 

• Deciding whether the proposed 

collections are necessary for the proper 

performance of our functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical use; 

• Evaluating the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collections, including the validity of our 

methodology and assumptions; 

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, 

and clarity of the information we 

collect; and 

• Minimizing the burden on those 

who must respond. This includes 

exploring the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology; e.g., permitting electronic 

submission of responses. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collections of 

information contained in these 

proposed regulations between 30 and 60 

days after publication of this document 

in the Federal Register. Therefore, to 

ensure that OMB gives your comments 

full consideration, it is important that 

OMB receives the comments within 30 

days of publication. This does not affect 

the deadline for your comments to us on 

the proposed regulations. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is subject to the 

requirements of Executive Order 12372 

and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

The objective of the Executive order is 

to foster an intergovernmental 

partnership and a strengthened 

federalism by relying on processes 

developed by State and local 

governments for coordination and 

review of proposed Federal financial 

assistance. 

In accordance with the order, we 

intend this document to provide early 

notification of the Department’s specific 

plans and actions for these programs. 

Assessment of Educational Impact 

In accordance with section 411 of the 

General Education Provisions Act, 20 

U.S.C. 1221e–4, the Secretary 

particularly requests comments on 

whether these proposed regulations 

would require transmission of 

information that any other agency or 

authority of the United States gathers or 

makes available. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may view this document, as well 

as all other Department of Education 

documents published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet 

at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ 

news/fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– 

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers HEP/CAMP: 84.141A, 84.149A; 

TRIO: 84.042A, 84.044A, 84.047A, 84.047M, 

84.047V, 84.066A, 84.103A, 84.217A; GEAR 

UP: 84.334A, 84.334S.) 

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Parts 206, 

642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647,and 694 

Colleges and universities, 

Disadvantaged students, Educational 

programs, Discretionary grants, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Training. 

Dated: March 3, 2010. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary proposes to 

amend parts 206, 642, 643, 644, 645, 

646, 647, and 694 of title 34 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 206—SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL 

PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WHOSE 

FAMILIES ARE ENGAGED IN MIGRANT 

AND OTHER SEASONAL 

FARMWORK—HIGH SCHOOL 

EQUIVALENCY PROGRAM AND 

COLLEGE ASSISTANCE MIGRANT 

PROGRAM 

1. The authority citation for part 206 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070d–2, unless 

otherwise noted. 

2. Section 206.3 is amended by: 

A. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the 

word ‘‘parent’’ and adding, in its place, 

the words ‘‘immediate family member’’. 

B. Revising paragraph (a)(2). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 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: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13876 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

§ 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: 

§ 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13877 

Subpart A of Part 642—[Amended] 

10. Section 642.1 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 642.3 Who are eligible participants? 

* * * * * 

§§ 642.4 and 642.5 [Redesignated as 

§§ 642.5 and 642.6] 

13. Sections 642.4 and 642.5 are 

redesignated as §§ 642.5 and 642.6. 

14. A new § 642.4 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 642.5 is 

amended by: 

A. Revising the section heading. 

B. Revising paragraph (a). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 642.5 What regulations apply? 

* * * * * 

(a) The Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 

34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for 

§§ 75.215–75.221), 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 

86, 97, 98, and 99. 

* * * * * 

16. Newly redesignated § 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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? 

§ 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) 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13878 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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) 

§ 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] 

§§ 642.30, 642.31, 642.32, 642.33, and 

642.34 [Redesignated as §§ 642.20, 

642.21, 642.22, 642.23, and 642.24] 

20. Newly redesignated subpart C of 

part 642 is amended by redesignating 

§§ 642.30, 642.31, 642.32, 642.33, and 

642.34 as §§ 642.20, 642.21, 642.22, 

642.23, and 642.24, respectively. 

21. Newly redesignated § 642.20 is 

amended by: 

A. Revising the section heading. 

B. In the introductory text of 

paragraph (a), removing the citation 

‘‘§ 642.31’’ and adding, in its place, the 

citation ‘‘§ 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: 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 642.23. 

* * * * * 

22. Newly redesignated § 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: 

§ 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 § 642.22 is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 642.22 How does the Secretary evaluate 

prior experience? 

(a) In the case of an application 

described in § 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 

§ 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 § 642.23 is 

amended by revising the section 

heading to read as follows: 

§ 642.23 How does the Secretary ensure 

geographic distribution of awards? 

* * * * * 

25. Newly redesignated § 642.24 is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 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: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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: 

§ 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13880 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 642.26 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 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] 

§ 642.40 and 642.41 [Redesignated as 

§ 642.30 and 642.31] 

28. Newly redesignated subpart D of 

part 642 is amended by redesignating 

§§ 642.40 and 642.41 as §§ 642.30 and 

642.31, respectively. 

29. Newly redesignated § 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: 

§ 642.30 What are allowable costs? 

* * * * * 

30. Newly redesignated § 642.31 is 

amended by revising the section 

heading to read as follows: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 643.2 Who is eligible for a grant? 

* * * * * 

(c) A secondary school. 

* * * * * 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 643.6 What regulations apply? 

* * * * * 

(a) The Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 

34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for 

§§ 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: 

§ 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 shortterm 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13882 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 691.16(a) 

through § 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. 

§ 643.10 [Redesignated as § 643.11] 

39a. Redesignate § 643.10 as § 643.11. 

40. A new § 643.10 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 § 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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: 

§ 643.22 How does the Secretary evaluate 

prior experience? 

(a) In the case of an application 

described in § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13884 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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) 

§ 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 § 643.24 is added to 

subpart C of part 643 to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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: 

§ 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 § 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: 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13886 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

program of study as defined in 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

* * * * * 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 644.6 What regulations apply? 

* * * * * 

(a) The Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 

34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for 

§§ 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: 

§ 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 shortterm 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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. 

§ 644.10 [Redesignated as § 644.11] 

58. In subpart B of part 644, § 644.10 

is redesignated as § 644.11. 

59. A new § 644.10 is added to 

subpart B of part 644 to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 644.22 How does the Secretary evaluate 

prior experience? 

(a) In the case of an application 

described in § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13888 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13890 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

§ 645.2 Who is eligible for a grant? 

* * * * * 

(b) A public or private agency or 

organization, including a communitybased 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: 

§ 645.4 What are the grantee requirements 

for documenting the low-income and firstgeneration status of participants? 

* * * * * 

71. Section 645.5 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 645.5 What regulations apply? 

* * * * * 

(a) The Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 

34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for 

§§ 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: 

§ 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 shortterm 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 645.6(b). 

* * * * * 

73. Section 645.11 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 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) 

§ 645.12, 645.13, and 645.14 [Redesignated 

as § 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 §§ 645.13, 645.14, and 

645.15 of subpart B of part 645, 

respectively. 

75. A new § 645.12 is added to 

subpart B of part 645 to read as follows: 

§ 645.12 What services may regular 

Upward Bound and Upward Bound MathScience 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 § 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 § 645.15 is 

amended by— 

A. In the introductory text, removing 

the words ‘‘§ 645.11(a) and may be 

provided under § 645.11(b)’’ and adding, 

in their place, the citation ‘‘§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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 lowincome individuals who are potential 

first-generation college students; 

(2) The remaining participants will be 

low-income individuals, potential firstgeneration 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 lowincome individuals who are potential 

first-generation college students; 

(2) The remaining participants will be 

either low-income individuals or 

potential first-generation college 

students; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13892 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(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 lowincome individuals who are potential 

first-generation college students; 

(2) The remaining participants will be 

low-income individuals, potential firstgeneration 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 645.32 How does the Secretary evaluate 

prior experience? 

(a) In the case of an application 

described in § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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) 

§ 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: 

§ 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 § 645.35 is added to 

subpart D of part 645 to read as follows: 

§ 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— 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13894 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(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 § 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13895 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 646.6 What regulations apply? 

* * * * * 

(a) The Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 

34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for 

§§ 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: 

§ 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— 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13896 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(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 shortterm 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? 

§ 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) 

§ 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: 

§ 646.20 How does the Secretary decide 

which new grants to make? 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) The maximum total score for all 

the criteria in § 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: 

§ 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.) 

* * * * * 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13897 

97. Section 646.22 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 646.22 How does the Secretary evaluate 

prior experience? 

(a) In the case of an application 

described in § 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 twoyear institution to a four-year institution 

during the academic year. 

(3) (4 points) Good academic 

standing. Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its objective regarding the 

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) 

§ 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 § 646.24 is added to 

subpart C of part 646 to read as follows: 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13898 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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: 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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. 

* * * * * 

§ 646.31 [Amended] 

101. Section 646.31(b) is amended by 

adding the words ‘‘, except for Grant aid 

under § 646.30(i)’’ after the word 

‘‘support’’. 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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 § 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 647.6 What regulations apply? 

* * * * * 

(a) The Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 

34 CFR parts 74, 75 (except for 

§§ 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: 

§ 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 shortterm 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); 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13900 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(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. 

§ 647.10 [Redesignated as § 647.11] 

109a. Redesignate § 647.10 as 

§ 647.11. 

110. Section 647.10 is added to 

subpart B of part 647 to read as follows: 

§ 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: 

§ 647.20 How does the Secretary decide 

which new grants to make? 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) The maximum total score for all 

the criteria in § 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 647.22 How does the Secretary evaluate 

prior experience? 

(a) In the case of an applicant 

described in § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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) 

§ 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: 

§ 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 § 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13902 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 694.8, 694.9, 694.10, 

694.11, 694.12, 694.13, and 694.15 as 

follows: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13903 

Old section New section 

§ 694.8 § 694.10 

§ 694.9 § 694.11 

§ 694.10 § 694.13 

§ 694.11 § 694.15 

§ 694.12 § 694.17 

§ 694.13 § 694.18 

§ 694.15 § 694.19 

123. New § 694.8 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 ongoing 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 reducedprice lunch under the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–23) 

124. New § 694.9 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 694.12 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

§ 694.13 or § 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 § 694.13 or § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13904 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 694.13 unless 

it elects to provide the scholarships in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 694.14 pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section. 

(2) Election to use § 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 § 694.14 

(rather than the requirements of 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 694.14. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–25) 

126. Newly redesignated § 694.13 is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 694.14 

pursuant to § 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 § 694.21 or § 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 § 694.14 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 694.12(b)(2), 

elected to use the § 694.14 requirements 

(rather than the § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13905 

institutions of higher education outside 

the State; and 

(4) Has participated in the activities 

required under § 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 § 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 § 694.15 is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 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 nonFederal 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: 

§ 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 § 694.12(b)(2), elect to 

use the § 694.14 requirements (rather 

than the § 694.13 requirements): 

(a) Scholarship funds held in reserve 

by States under § 694.14(c) or by 

Partnerships under section 404D(b)(7) of 

the HEA that are not used by eligible 

students as defined in § 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 § 694.18 is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 694.19 is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 694.20 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 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) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
13906 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 694.21 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 694.22 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 §§ 694.21, 694.22, and 

694.23. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–24(b)) 

135. New § 694.23 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 694.23 What additional activities are 

allowable for State GEAR UP projects? 

In addition to the required and 

permissible activities identified in 

§§ 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 694.24 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 694.25 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

§§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2