Tuesday, 

October 26, 2010 

Part II 

Department of 

Education 

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

High School Equivalency Program and 

College Assistance Migrant Program, The 

Federal TRIO Programs, and Gaining 

Early Awareness and Readiness for 

Undergraduate Program; Final Rule 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65712 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Parts 206, 642, 643, 644, 645, 

646, 647, and 694 

RIN 1840–AD01 

[Docket ID ED–2010–OPE–0002] 

High School Equivalency Program and 

College Assistance Migrant Program, 

The Federal TRIO Programs, and 

Gaining Early Awareness and 

Readiness for Undergraduate Program 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education and Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the 

regulations, and establishes new 

regulations, for the High School 

Equivalency Program and College 

Assistance Migrant Program (HEP and 

CAMP); the Federal TRIO programs 

(TRIO programs—Training program for 

Federal TRIO programs (Training), 

Talent Search (TS), Educational 

Opportunity Centers (EOC), Upward 

Bound (UB), Student Support Services 

(SSS), and the Ronald E. McNair 

Postbaccalaureate Achievement 

(McNair) programs); and the Gaining 

Early Awareness and Readiness for 

Undergraduate (GEAR UP) program. 

The purpose of HEP is to help migrant 

and seasonal farmworkers and their 

immediate family members obtain a 

general educational development (GED) 

credential, while CAMP assists students 

from this background to complete their 

first academic year of college and 

continue in postsecondary education. 

The Federal TRIO programs consist of 

five postsecondary educational 

opportunity outreach and support 

programs designed to motivate and 

assist low-income individuals, firstgeneration college students, and 

individuals with disabilities to enter 

and complete secondary and 

postsecondary programs of study and 

enroll in graduate programs, and a 

training program for project staff 

working in one or more of the Federal 

TRIO programs. The purpose of the 

GEAR UP program is to increase the 

number of low-income students who are 

prepared to enter and succeed in 

postsecondary education. 

These regulations are needed to 

implement provisions of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(HEA) by the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA) that 

relate to the HEP and CAMP, Federal 

TRIO programs, and GEAR UP program. 

DATES: Effective Date: These regulations 

are effective December 27, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information, Pamela J. Maimer, 

U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K 

Street, NW., room 8014, Washington, 

DC 20006–8014. Telephone: (202) 502– 

7704 or via the Internet at: 

Pamela.Maimer@ed.gov. 

For information related to HEP and 

CAMP issues, Nathan Weiss, U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of 

Migrant Education, 400 Maryland Ave. 

SW., room 3E–321, Washington, DC 

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

or via the Internet at: 

Nathan.Weiss@ed.gov. 

For information related to Federal 

TRIO issues, Frances Bergeron, U.S. 

Department of Education, 1990 K Street, 

NW., room 7059, Washington, DC 

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

or via the Internet at 

Frances.Bergeron@ed.gov. 

For information related to GEAR UP 

issues, James Davis, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 

6109, Washington, DC 20006–6109. 

Telephone: (202) 502–7802 or via the 

Internet at: James.Davis@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities can 

obtain this document in an accessible 

format (e.g., braille, large print, 

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to any of the contact persons 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

23, 2010, the Secretary published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

for the HEP and CAMP, the Federal 

TRIO programs, and the GEAR UP 

program in the Federal Register (75 FR 

13814). In the preamble to the NPRM, 

the Secretary discussed on pages 13816 

through 13859 the major changes 

proposed in that document to 

strengthen and improve the 

administration of the HEP and CAMP, 

the Federal TRIO programs, and the 

GEAR UP program authorized under the 

HEA. 

These final regulations implement 

changes made by the HEOA to 

discretionary grant programs authorized 

by title IV of the HEA, including: 

HEP and CAMP: 

• Amending § 206.3(a)(1) for HEP and 

CAMP to allow students to qualify for 

the program through their own 

qualifying work, or that of an immediate 

family member, rather than only 

through their own work or that of a 

parent, as the statute previously held 

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

• Amending § 206.5(c) to define the 

term immediate family member to 

include only individuals who are 

dependent upon a migrant or seasonal 

farmworker (see section 418A(b)(B)(i) of 

the HEA). 

• Amending § 206.5(c) to revise the 

definition of the term seasonal 

farmworker to clarify that the 

individual’s primary employment in 

migrant and seasonal farmwork must 

occur for at least 75 days within the past 

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

of the HEA). 

• Amending the authorized HEP 

services section in § 206.10(b) to (1) 

provide that permissible HEP services 

include preparation for college entrance 

examinations; (2) provide that 

permissible HEP services include all 

stipends—not only weekly stipends— 

for HEP participants; (3) add 

transportation and child care as 

examples of essential supportive 

services; and (4) specify that HEP 

services include other activities to 

improve persistence and retention in 

postsecondary education (see section 

418A(b) of the HEA). 

• Amending CAMP services in 

§ 206.10(b)(2) to specify that: (1) 

Permissible CAMP services include 

supportive and instructional services to 

improve placement, persistence, and 

retention in postsecondary education; 

(2) these supportive services include 

personal, academic, career, economic 

education, or personal finance 

counseling as an ongoing part of the 

program, and (3) permissible CAMP 

services include internships (see section 

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

• Amending § 206.11(b) to specify 

that follow-up CAMP services include: 

(1) Referring CAMP students to oncampus or off-campus providers of 

counseling services, academic 

assistance, or financial aid, and 

coordinating those services, assistance, 

and aid with other non-program 

services, assistance, and aid, including 

services, assistance, and aid provided by 

community-based organizations, which 

may include mentoring and guidance, 

and (2) for students attending two-year 

institutions of higher education, 

encouraging the students to transfer to 

four-year institutions of higher 

education, where appropriate, and 

monitoring the rate of transfer of these 

students (see section 418A(c)(2) of the 

HEA). 

• Amending § 206.20(b)(2) to specify 

that the Secretary must not allocate an 

amount less than $180,000 for HEP and 

CAMP grants (see section 418A(e) of the 

HEA). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65713 

• Adding § 206.31 to the HEP and 

CAMP program regulations to specify 

the criteria the Department considers in 

evaluating prior experience (see section 

418A(f) of the HEA). 

Federal TRIO Programs 

• Amending §§ 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) 

(EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), 646.7(b) (SSS), 

and 647.7(b) (McNair) to revise or add 

definitions for different campus and 

different population, which change the 

prior regulatory definitions of these 

terms for the SSS program and the 

Department’s administrative practice 

with regard to the number of 

applications an eligible entity may 

submit under each of the TRIO 

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

(h)(2) of the HEA). 

• Adding new §§ 642.11 and 642.12 

(Training) and amending § 643.4 (TS), 

part 645 (UB, Upward Bound Math and 

Science (UBMS), and Veterans Upward 

Bound (VUB)) § 646.4 (SSS), and § 647.4 

(McNair) to specify the services or 

activities that projects funded under the 

Federal TRIO programs must provide 

and the services or activities that these 

projects may provide. 

• Amending §§ 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) 

(EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), and 646.7(b) (SSS) 

to add new categories of participants 

(foster care youth and homeless 

children and youth) for whom projects 

funded under these programs are to 

provide services (see section 402A(e)(3) 

of the HEA). 

• Amending newly redesignated 

§ 642.22 (Training) and §§ 643.22 (TS), 

644.22 (EOC), 645.32 (UB), 646.22 

(SSS), and 647.22 (McNair) to align 

prior experience determinations with 

statutorily revised outcome criteria (see 

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

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

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

section 402A(f)(3)(D) of the HEA 

(McNair), and section 402A(f)(3)(E) of 

the HEA (EOC)). 

• Adding §§ 642.25 (Training), 643.24 

(TS), 644.24 (EOC), 645.35 (UB), 646.24 

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

new procedure to allow unsuccessful 

grant applicants to request a review of 

alleged technical, administrative, or 

scoring errors that affected the 

applicant’s application. 

• Amending newly redesignated 

§ 642.6(b) (Training) and §§ 643.7(b) 

(TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), 

646.7(b) (SSS), and 647.7(b) (McNair) to 

revise definitions for some terms and to 

add new definitions to implement 

amendments to the HEA by the HEOA: 

• Financial and economic literacy 

(§§ 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), 

645.6(b) (UB), 646.7(b) (SSS), and 

647.7(b) (McNair)) (see section 

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

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

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

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

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

• Foster care youth and homeless 

children and youth (newly redesignated 

§ 642.6(b) (Training) and §§ 643.7(b) 

(TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), and 

646.7(b) (SSS)) (see sections 402A(e)(3) 

and 402B(c)(7) of the HEA (TS), section 

402C(d)(7) of the HEA (UB), section 

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

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

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

(Training)). 

• Graduate center; groups 

underrepresented in graduate school; 

and research and scholarly activities 

(§ 647.7(b) (McNair)) (see sections 101 

and 102 of the HEA and section 

402E(d)(2) of the HEA (McNair)). 

• Individual with a disability (newly 

redesignated § 642.6(b) (Training) and 

§§ 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), 

645.6(b) (UB), and 646.7(b) (SSS)) (see 

section 402B(c)(7) of the HEA (TS), 

section 402C(d)(7) of the HEA (UB), 

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

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

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

HEA (Training)). 

• Individual who has a high risk for 

academic failure and veteran who has a 

high risk for academic failure (§ 645.6(b) 

(UB and VUB)) (see sections 

402A(f)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv) and 402C(e)(2) 

of the HEA (UB)). 

• Institution of higher education 

(newly redesignated § 642.6(b) 

(Training) and §§ 643.7(b) (TS), 644.7(b) 

(EOC), 645.6(b) (UB), 646.7(b) (SSS), 

and 647.7(b) (McNair)) (see sections 101 

and 102 of the HEA). 

• Regular secondary school diploma 

and rigorous secondary school program 

of study (§§ 643.7(b) (TS) and 645.6(b) 

(UB)) (see section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iii) and 

(iv) of the HEA (TS) and section 

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

• Veteran (newly redesignated 

§ 642.6(b) (Training) and §§ 643.7(b) 

(TS), 644.7(b) (EOC), and 645.6 (b) (UB)) 

(see section 402A(h)(5) of the HEA (TS, 

EOC, and UB)). 

Additionally, the regulations for the 

TRIO programs were amended to reflect 

other changes made by the HEOA, other 

amendments to the HEA, and 

established administrative practices. 

These changes include the following: 

• Amending the project period for the 

TRIO programs in newly redesignated 

§ 642.4 (Training) and §§ 643.5 (TS), 

644.5 (EOC), 645.34 (UB), 646.5 (SSS), 

and 647.5 (McNair) to define the project 

period as two years for Training and five 

years for TS, EOC, UB, SSS, and McNair 

(see section 402A(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 

HEA). 

• Revising the selection criteria 

related to ‘‘Objectives’’ for the following 

TRIO pre-college and college programs: 

TS (§ 643.21(b)); EOC (§ 644.21(b)); UB 

(§ 645.31(b)(1), VUB (§ 645.31(b)(2)); 

SSS (§ 646.21(b)); and McNair 

(§ 647.21(b)) (see section 402A(f)(3)(A) 

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

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

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

the HEA (McNair), and section 

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

• Removing the minimum number of 

participants in the regulations for TS, 

EOC, UB, UBMS, and VUB projects (see 

sections 402A(f), 402A(b)(3), 402B (TS), 

402C (UB), 402F (EOC) of the HEA). For 

each grant competition, the Department 

will establish the minimum number of 

participants to be served by a grantee 

through the Federal Register notice 

inviting applications. 

• Amending newly redesignated 

§§ 642.22 and 642.24 of the TRIO 

Training regulations to reflect current 

law and practice regarding: (1) The need 

for the project selection criteria and the 

process for ranking applications by 

priority; (2) the use of prior experience 

points in the ranking of applications for 

funding; and (3) the number of prior 

experience points that can be earned 

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

GEAR UP 

• Redesignating § 694.15 as § 694.19 

to accommodate the proposed addition 

of other regulatory provisions. 

Amending newly redesignated § 694.19 

to provide that the Secretary award 

competitive preference priority points to 

an eligible applicant for a State GEAR 

UP grant that has both carried out a 

successful State GEAR UP grant prior to 

August 14, 2008, and demonstrated a 

prior commitment to early intervention 

leading to college access through 

collaboration and replication of 

successful strategies; and to specify how 

the Department determines whether a 

State GEAR UP grant has been 

‘‘successful’’ (see section 404A(b)(3) of 

the HEA). 

• Adding § 694.20 to explain when a 

GEAR UP grantee is allowed to provide 

services to students attending an 

institution of higher education (see 

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

• Adding new § 694.24 to require 

grantees that continue to provide 

services to students through their first 

year of attendance at an institution of 

higher education, to the extent 

practicable, to coordinate with other 

campus programs in order not to 

duplicate services (see section 

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


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65714 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

• Amending § 694.7(a)(2) to require 

that a GEAR UP grantee make 

substantial progress towards meeting 

the matching percentage stated in its 

approved application for each year of 

the project period. Grantees are no 

longer required to meet the matching 

requirement each year of the project 

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

• Adding new § 694.8 to: (1) Provide 

authority for the Secretary to approve a 

Partnership applicant’s request for a 

waiver of up to 50 or 75 percent of the 

matching requirement for up to two 

years under certain circumstances; and 

(2) create a multiple-tiered system for 

different types of waiver requests (see 

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

• Adding new § 694.8(b)(3) to specify 

that at the time of application, the 

Secretary may provide tentative 

approval of a Partnership applicant’s 

request for a 50-percent waiver for the 

entire project period so that a 

Partnership applicant that meets the 

conditions for such a waiver has an 

opportunity to apply for a grant without 

needing to identify additional sources of 

match funding in the later years of the 

project period (see section 404C(b)(2) of 

the HEA). 

• Adding new §§ 694.21 and 694.22 

to specify required and allowable 

activities and separate these required 

and allowable activities into multiple 

regulatory sections (section 404D of the 

HEA). 

• Adding new § 694.22(e) to specify 

that GEAR UP grantees may provide 

activities that support participating 

students to develop graduation and 

career plans, including career awareness 

and planning assistance as they relate to 

a rigorous academic curriculum (see 

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

• Adding newly redesignated 

§§ 694.13 and new 694.14 to clarify that 

GEAR UP funds may be used to support 

the costs of administering a scholarship 

program as well as the costs of the 

scholarships themselves (see sections 

404E(a)(1) and 404D(b)(7) of the HEA). 

• Adding new § 694.24 to describe 

the types of services that a grantee may 

provide to students in their first year of 

attendance at an institution of higher 

education and listing examples of these 

services (see section 404D of the HEA). 

• Amending newly redesignated 

§ 694.13(a) to specify the minimum 

amount of scholarship funding for an 

eligible student, and provide that the 

State or Partnership awarding the GEAR 

UP scholarship may reduce the 

scholarship amount if an eligible 

student who is awarded a GEAR UP 

scholarship attends an institution of 

higher education on a less than full-time 

basis during any award year (see section 

404E(d) of the HEA). 

• Adding new § 694.14(b) to 

incorporate the statutory definition of 

the term eligible student (from section 

404E(g) of the HEA) in the program 

regulations. 

• Clarifying in new § 694.14(c)(2) the 

amount of funds that State grantees that 

do not receive a waiver of the 

requirement that States must expend at 

least 50 percent of their GEAR UP 

funding on scholarships must hold in 

reserve for scholarships and how States 

must use these funds (see section 

404E(e) of the HEA). 

• Clarifying in newly redesignated 

§ 694.13(c) that scholarships must be 

made to all students who are eligible 

under the definition in § 694.13(d) and 

that a grantee may not impose 

additional eligibility criteria that would 

have the effect of limiting or denying a 

scholarship to an eligible student (see 

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

• Adding new 694.14(e) to specify 

that States awarding scholarships must 

provide information on the eligibility 

requirements for the scholarships to all 

participating students upon the 

students’ entry into the GEAR UP 

program (see section 404E(c) of the 

HEA). 

• Adding new 694.14(f) to specify 

that States must provide scholarship 

funds to all eligible students who attend 

an institution of higher education in the 

State, and may provide these 

scholarship funds to eligible students 

who attend institutions of higher 

education outside the State (see section 

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

• Specifying in new § 694.14(g) that a 

State or Partnership that chooses to 

participate in the scholarship 

component in accordance with section 

404E of the HEA may award 

continuation scholarships in successive 

award years to each student who 

received an initial scholarship and who 

is enrolled or accepted for enrollment in 

a program of undergraduate instruction 

at an institution of higher education (see 

section 404E of the HEA). 

• Amending newly redesignated 

§ 694.15 to specify that a GEAR UP 

Partnership that does not participate in 

the GEAR UP scholarship component 

may provide financial assistance for 

postsecondary education using nonFederal funds, and those funds may be 

used to comply with the program’s 

matching requirement (see section 

404C(b) of the HEA). 

• Adding new § 694.16 to specify 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). 

• Adding new § 694.25 to require 

grantees that receive initial grant awards 

after the passage of the HEOA to 

continue to serve students from a 

previous grant received by the grantee 

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

• Adding new § 694.25(a) to clarify 

whom a grantee must serve if not all 

students in the cohort attend the same 

school after the cohort completes the 

last grade level offered by the school at 

which the cohort began to receive GEAR 

UP services (see section 404B(d) of the 

HEA). 

• Amending newly redesignated 

§ 694.18 to specify that 21st Century 

Scholarship Certificates are to be 

provided by the grantees (rather than by 

the Secretary to the grantees), and must 

indicate the estimated amount of any 

scholarship that a student may be 

eligible to receive. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

The regulations in this document 

were developed through the use of 

negotiated rulemaking. Section 492 of 

the HEA requires that, before publishing 

any proposed regulations to implement 

programs under title IV of the HEA, the 

Secretary must obtain public 

involvement in the development of the 

proposed regulations. After obtaining 

advice and recommendations, the 

Secretary must conduct a negotiated 

rulemaking process to develop the 

proposed regulations. The negotiated 

rulemaking committee did not reach 

consensus on the proposed regulations 

that were published on March 23, 2010. 

The Secretary invited comments on the 

proposed regulations by April 22, 2010. 

In response to the Secretary’s invitation 

in the NPRM to the proposed 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65715 

1For the Training Program, the Federal Register 

notice inviting applications will include the 

statutory and other priorities that applicants must 

address for the competition. Training program 

grantees will provide training on the topics 

identified in the published priorities. 

regulations, 455 parties submitted 

comments on the proposed regulations. 

An analysis of the comments and of the 

changes in the regulations since 

publication of the NPRM follows. 

We group major issues according to 

subject, with appropriate sections of the 

regulations referenced in parentheses. 

We discuss other substantive issues 

under the sections of the regulations to 

which they pertain. Generally, we do 

not address technical and other minor 

changes, suggested changes that the law 

does not authorize the Secretary to 

make, or comments pertaining to issues 

that were not within the scope of the 

NPRM. 

Part 206—Special Educational 

Programs for Students Whose Families 

Are Engaged in Migrant and Other 

Seasonal Farmwork—High School 

Equivalency Program (HEP) and College 

Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) 

Who May Benefit From HEP and CAMP? 

(34 CFR Part 206) 

Comment: One commenter inquired 

as to whether HEP would only benefit 

farm workers and their families and 

stated that there were others, not 

necessarily in that group, who could 

potentially be helped by this program. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s view that HEP could 

potentially help individuals who are not 

migrant and seasonal farmworkers. 

However, section 418A of the HEA, 

which authorizes both HEP and CAMP, 

requires that program activities focus on 

migrant and seasonal farmworkers and 

their immediate family. The Department 

does not have the authority to expand 

this statutorily prescribed requirement. 

Changes: None. 

Types of Services for CAMP Projects 

(§ 206.10(b)(2)) 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: In our review of 

§ 206.10(b)(2), we realized that 

§ 206.10(b)(2)(iv) contained a 

typographical error and we have 

corrected it. 

Changes: In § 206.10(b)(2)(iv), we 

have removed the word ‘‘student’’ and 

added, in its place, the word ‘‘students’’ 

to correct a typographical error. 

Prior Experience in HEP and CAMP 

(§ 206.31(a)) 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department revise the wording 

of a note that was included in the 

NPRM’s preamble discussion of prior 

experience under HEP and CAMP. 

Specifically, the commenter suggested 

deleting the phrase ‘‘for the priority’’ 

from the following note, which 

appeared on page 13820 of the NPRM 

(75 FR 13814, 13820): 

‘‘Note: The TRIO programs have had a 

longstanding requirement that only 

applicants with an expiring TRIO project are 

eligible for the priority for prior experience. 

Consequently, in providing the same degree 

of consideration for prior experience as 

provided under the Federal TRIO programs, 

we view this aspect of proposed § 206.31(a) 

to be statutorily required.’’ 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern for clarifying this 

language from the preamble of the 

NPRM. In this notice of final 

regulations, we make changes, if 

appropriate, to the regulations 

themselves, not language from the 

preamble of the NPRM. Moreover, we 

do not believe that any change to the 

regulations themselves is necessary 

because § 206.31(a) refers only to the 

Secretary considering the applicant’s 

experience in implementing an expiring 

HEP project; it does not use the phrase 

‘‘for the priority’’. 

Changes: None. 

Federal TRIO Programs—34 CFR Parts 

642 (Training Program for Federal 

TRIO Programs), 643 (Talent Search), 

644 (Educational Opportunity Centers), 

645 (Upward Bound Program), 646 

(Student Support Services Program), 

647 (Ronald E. McNair 

Postbaccalaureate Achievement 

Program) 

Section 403(a) of the HEOA amended 

section 402A of the HEA to include a 

number of new requirements that apply 

across the Federal TRIO programs (i.e., 

the Talent Search (TS), Upward Bound 

(UB), Student Support Services (SSS), 

Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate 

Achievement (McNair), Educational 

Opportunity Centers (EOC), and Staff 

Development Activities (Training) 

programs). Additionally, section 403(b) 

through (g) of the HEOA amended 

sections 402B, 402C, 402D, 402E, 402F, 

and 402G, to make specific changes to 

the TS, UB, SSS, McNair, EOC, and 

Training programs, respectively. 

We have organized the discussion of 

comments received on and responses to 

the proposed changes to the specific 

Federal TRIO program regulations by 

first addressing crosscutting issues by 

subject matter and then discussing 

program-specific issues on a programby-program basis. 

Our discussion of comments 

applicable to specific programs follows 

the order of the Department’s 

regulations for those programs (i.e., 34 

CFR parts 642 (Training), 643 (TS), 644 

(EOC), 645 (UB), 646 (SSS), and 647 

(McNair)). 

Number of Applications an Eligible 

Entity May Submit To Serve Different 

Campuses and Different Populations 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that an applicant that submitted 

a TRIO Program grant application to 

provide services to one of the different 

populations identified by the Secretary 

in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for one fiscal year 

competition would be ineligible to 

submit an application for a new grant 

award to continue the existing project if 

the population served by the existing 

project was not designated as an eligible 

population in the notice inviting 

applications for the next competition. 

The commenter suggested that the 

Department include language in the 

regulations to ensure that an applicant 

with an expiring grant will be eligible to 

apply for a new grant in a subsequent 

competition to serve the same 

population of students. 

Discussion: As part of the HEOA, 

Congress significantly revised the 

definition of ‘‘eligible population’’ in 

section 402A(h)(2) of the HEA. To 

implement this statutory change, the 

regulations specify that, for each 

competition, the Department will 

designate in the Federal Register notice 

inviting applications for the 

competition, the different populations 

for which an entity may submit a 

separate application (see §§ 642.7 

(Training) 1, 643.10(b) (TS), 644.10(b) 

(EOC), 645.20(b) (UB), 646.10(b) (SSS), 

and 647.10(b) (McNair). 

Under these regulations, therefore, an 

entity that previously received a grant to 

serve a particular population would be 

eligible to submit an application for a 

new grant to continue serving the same 

population if that population is 

included as a designated population in 

the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for the new competition. If 

the population served by the grantee is 

not designated for the new competition, 

the entity would not be eligible to apply 

for a grant to continue to serve the same 

population it served under the expiring 

grant. While an entity with an expiring 

grant serving another population could 

apply for a grant to serve one of the 

populations designated in the notice 

inviting applications for the new 

competition, the entity would not be 

eligible for PE points based on its 

expiring grant. 

Changes: None. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65716 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2 In the case of the TS program, projects must 

provide connections for participants to education or 

counseling services designed to improve the 

financial and economic literacy of the participants 

or the participants’ parents, including financial 

planning for postsecondary education. 

Designating Different Populations in the 

Federal Register Notice Inviting 

Applications 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

whether designating different 

populations for each competition was 

consistent with the TRIO programs’ 

goals. The commenter believed that this 

approach would politicize the 

application process because it would 

force applicants to constantly change 

the focus of their projects to meet the 

changing requirements of the times. 

Ultimately, the commenter expressed 

concern that the proposed approach 

would destabilize the programs because 

it would reduce the effectiveness of the 

grantees. 

Discussion: We do not agree that the 

designation of different populations to 

be served for each competition will 

politicize the application process or 

reduce the effectiveness of the TRIO 

programs because most of the projects 

funded under any competition will be 

for traditional TRIO projects (i.e., 

projects that provide services to eligible 

participants—low-income, firstgeneration college students, and 

students with disabilities—but that do 

not focus services on a specific 

population). For example, during the FY 

2010 SSS grant competition only a small 

percentage of the applicants proposed 

projects to serve different populations 

that had distinct needs for specialized 

services that could not be addressed 

through a regular SSS project. As 

discussed in the NPRM, 75 FR at 13821– 

22, the designation of different 

populations for each competition will 

give the Department the flexibility to 

address changing national needs and to 

ensure that Federal funds are targeted to 

areas or populations most in need. The 

Secretary believes that it is appropriate 

to change the focus of the TRIO 

programs if the national needs change. 

That said, this does not mean that the 

Department will change the designated 

populations for each new competition. 

Changes: None. 

Clarification of the Term ‘‘Designated 

Different Population’’ 

Comment: One commenter asked for 

clarification regarding what qualifies as 

a designated different population. 

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

HEA, as amended by section 

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

the Secretary may not limit the number 

of applications submitted by an eligible 

entity under any Federal TRIO program 

if the additional applications describe 

programs serving different populations 

or different campuses. Section 

402A(h)(2) of the HEA defines ‘‘different 

population’’ as a group of individuals 

that an eligible entity desires to serve 

using a Federal TRIO grant and that is 

separate and distinct from any other 

population that the entity has applied to 

serve, or that, while sharing some of the 

same needs as another population, has 

distinct needs for specialized services. 

The definition sections of each of the 

TRIO program regulations will include 

the new statutory definition for 

‘‘different population’’ for each program 

to which the term applies. In addition, 

each of the TRIO program regulations 

provide that the Secretary will 

designate, in the Federal Register notice 

inviting applications and other 

published application materials for each 

competition, the different populations 

for which an eligible entity can submit 

separate applications. Therefore, what 

qualifies as a designated different 

population for each grant competition 

will be determined by the Department 

and described in the Federal Register 

notice inviting applications for that 

competition. For example, under the FY 

2010 SSS grant competition, the 

Secretary designated projects that serve 

five different populations: Individuals 

with disabilities, individuals for whom 

English is a second language, 

individuals pursing science, technology, 

engineering and math disciplines, 

individuals pursuing teacher 

preparation, and individuals pursuing 

health sciences. 

Changes: None. 

Definitions Applicable to More Than 

One Federal TRIO Program Definition 

of Financial and Economic Literacy 

(§§ 643.7, 644.7, 645.6, 646.7, 647.7) 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that providing education or counseling 

services designed to improve financial 

and economic literacy should be a 

required service for all TRIO programs. 

Multiple commenters noted that EOC 

projects do not have enough time or 

resources to provide education or 

counseling services to improve 

participants’ knowledge about all of the 

examples of personal financial decisionmaking listed in the definition of 

financial and economic literacy. 

Discussion: Under these regulations, 

all Federal TRIO programs—other than 

the Training program—include as a 

mandatory or permissible activity 

providing education or counseling 

services designed to improve the 

financial and economic literacy of 

participants (see §§ 643.4(a)(6) TS),2

644.4(e) (EOC), 645.11(a)(6) (UB), 

646.4(a)(4) (SSS), and 647.4(b)(1) 

(McNair)). The definition of financial 

and economic literacy is consistent 

across programs. We intended the 

proposed definition to include a nonexhaustive list of examples of the types 

of knowledge that comprise knowledge 

about personal financial decisionmaking. We have made minor changes 

to this definition to make clear that the 

list of examples is not exhaustive and is 

not a list of mandatory activities. 

Changes: For clarity we have changed 

the phrase ‘‘including but not limited to’’ 

to ‘‘which may include but is not limited 

to’’ in order to emphasize that the list of 

types of knowledge that may constitute 

knowledge about personal financial 

decision-making is not exhaustive and 

is not a list of mandatory activities. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended changes to the language 

used for some of the examples included 

in the definition of the term financial 

and economic literacy. One commenter 

suggested changing the reference to 

‘‘secondary education’’ in § 646.7 (SSS) 

to ‘‘postsecondary education’’. Other 

commenters suggested that we add the 

term ‘‘postbaccalaureate’’ after the 

reference to ‘‘postsecondary’’, that we 

change the words ‘‘scholarship, grant 

and loan education’’ to ‘‘financial 

assistance education,’’ and that we 

include the word ‘‘assistanceships’’ in 

the definition of financial and economic 

literacy. 

Discussion: We generally agree with 

these requested changes because we 

believe that they help to clarify the 

types of knowledge one should have to 

be financially and economically literate. 

Therefore, we have revised §§ 643.7, 

644.7, 645.6, 646.7, 647.7 to make these 

changes. With respect to the request to 

add the words ‘‘financial assistance 

education,’’ we agree with the concept 

behind the comment but believe it is 

more appropriate to refer to ‘‘financial 

assistance’’ because it is knowledge 

about financial assistance, not financial 

assistance education, that is relevant. 

Changes: In the definition of financial 

and economic literacy in § 646.7 (SSS), 

we have changed the reference to 

‘‘secondary education’’ to 

‘‘postsecondary education’’. In addition, 

in the definition of financial and 

economic literacy included in the 

regulations for the TS, EOC, UB, and 

McNair programs, we have added the 

term ‘‘postbaccalaureate’’ after the 

reference to ‘‘postsecondary’’, replaced 

the words ‘‘scholarship, grant and loan 

education’’ with the words ‘‘financial 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65717 

3Subtitle B of Title VII of the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act defines ‘‘homeless’’ as 

follows: 

The term ‘‘homeless children and youths’’— 

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

and adequate nighttime residence (within the 

meaning of section 103(a)(1)); and 

(B) includes— 

(i) children and youths who are sharing the 

housing of other persons due to loss of housing, 

economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living 

in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds 

due to the lack of alternative adequate 

accommodations; are living in emergency or 

transitional shelters; are abandoned in hospitals; or 

are awaiting foster care placement; 

(ii) children and youths who have a primary 

nighttime residence that is a public or private place 

not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular 

sleeping accommodation for human beings (within 

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

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

parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, 

substandard housing, bus or train stations, or 

similar settings; and 

(iv) migratory children (as such term is defined 

in section 1309 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965) who qualify as homeless for 

the purposes of this subtitle because the children 

are living in circumstances described in clauses (i) 

through (iii). 

assistance,’’ and included 

‘‘assistanceships’’ as an example. 

Definition of Homeless Children and 

Youth (§§ 642.6, 643.7, 644.7, 645.6, 

646.7) 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

asked for clarification of the definition 

of ‘‘youth’’. These commenters stated 

that the McKinney-Vento Homeless 

Assistance Act defines the age of 

children and youth as ending prior to 

being college aged. The commenters 

expressed concern that this definition 

would limit the services that TRIO 

programs could offer to these students. 

One commenter asked if homeless 

children and youth will be a separate 

group of eligible participants like firstgeneration or low-income students. 

Discussion: The McKinney-Vento Act 

defines ‘‘homeless children and youths’’ 

in terms of what qualifies the individual 

as homeless, not by age.3 Therefore, 

there is no cut-off age for the definition 

of ‘‘youth’’ in the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act. 

Those TRIO programs that provide 

pre-college programs assist students 

who are individuals covered by the 

definition of homeless children and 

youth in the McKinney-Vento Homeless 

Assistance Act. In the SSS program, 

however, assistance for securing 

temporary housing during breaks in the 

academic year may be provided to 

students who are homeless children and 

youths or formerly homeless children or 

youths (see § 646.30(j)). 

Finally, while section 402A(c)(6) of 

the HEA requires TRIO projects, as 

appropriate, to make services available 

to homeless children and youths, 

homeless children and youths are not a 

separate group of eligible participants. 

Therefore, homeless children and 

youths are only eligible if they also meet 

the program’s participant eligibility 

criteria (e.g., low-income, firstgeneration). 

Changes: None 

Definition of Individual With a 

Disability (§§ 642.6, 643.7, 644.7, 645.6, 

and 646.7) 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

requested that we broaden the definition 

of the term individuals with disabilities 

to mirror the language used in the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

Another commenter requested 

clarification on whether the inclusion of 

the term ‘‘individual with disabilities’’ 

means that a student with a documented 

disability or individualized education 

plan could participate in a TRIO project 

even if he or she does not meet one of 

the other eligibility criteria. 

Discussion: The ADA, as revised by 

the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 

defines the term ‘‘disability’’ to mean, 

with respect to an individual, (A) a 

physical or mental impairment that 

substantially limits one or more major 

life activities of such an individual, (B) 

a record of such an impairment or (C) 

being regarded as having such an 

‘‘impairment.’’ This definition also 

applies under Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

(Section 504). We agree that it is 

appropriate to use a definition of an 

individual with a disability that 

incorporates the ADA’s definition of 

‘‘disability.’’ Accordingly, we have 

changed the definition of individual 

with disabilities to be a definition of the 

term individual with a disability and we 

define individual with a disability to 

mean a person with a disability, as that 

term is defined in section 12102 of the 

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

With respect to the comment seeking 

clarification on whether the inclusion of 

the term individual with disabilities in 

these regulations means that a student 

with a documented disability or 

individualized education program could 

participate in a TRIO project even if he 

or she does not meet one of the other 

eligibility criteria, we note that—except 

under the SSS program—being an 

individual with a disability is not a 

separate and additional eligibility 

criterion, such as being a firstgeneration or low-income student. 

Therefore, under all but SSS, being an 

individual with a disability does not, on 

its own, make an individual eligible to 

participate in a TRIO project. It is 

important to note that adopting the 

ADA’s definition of an individual with 

a disability does not mean that grant 

funds under these programs may be 

used to pay for services required by the 

ADA that are not directly related to the 

goals of the TRIO programs. However, 

this prohibition would not relieve the 

institution of their obligations under the 

ADA or Section 504. For example, it 

would not be appropriate to use SSS 

program funds to pay for a sign language 

interpreter for a student who is hard of 

hearing to participate in his or her 

Calculus class as required by the ADA 

or Section 504. 

Changes: In §§ 642.6, 643.7, 644.7, 

645.6, and 646.7 of the final regulations, 

we define individual with a disability to 

mean a person with a disability, as that 

term is defined in section 12102 of the 

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

Definition of Veteran (§§ 643.7, 644.7, 

and 645.6) 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the proposed definition of veteran 

be modified to include National Guard 

veterans who served on active duty in 

Iraq and/or Afghanistan given that a 

large number of these individuals were 

called to duty in Iraq and Afghanistan 

and served for long tours of duty. 

Discussion: National Guard veterans 

who served on active duty in Iraq and/ 

or Afghanistan are included in the 

definition of veteran. These individuals 

qualify as veterans under the last two 

paragraphs of that definition (i.e., the 

individual was a member of a reserve 

component of the Armed Forces of the 

United States and was called to active 

duty for a period of more than 30 days, 

or the individual was a member of a 

reserve component of the Armed Forces 

of the United States who served on 

active duty in support of a contingency 

operation on or after September 11, 

2011). 

Changes: None. 

Evaluating Prior Experience—Outcome 

Criteria Definition of ‘‘High Quality 

Service Delivery’’ (§§ 642.20(b), 

643.20(a)(2)(i), 644.20(a)(2)(i), 

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

647.20(a)(2)(i)) 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concerns about the proposed 

regulations that would provide that the 

Secretary would consider an applicant’s 

prior experience of ‘‘high quality service 

delivery’’ in deciding which new grants 

to make. Some commenters 

recommended that the phrase ‘‘high 

quality service delivery’’ be defined to 

provide projects with clear expectations 

and performance standards. Other 

commenters stated that, because the 

phrase ‘‘high quality service delivery’’ is 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65718 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

not defined, it should not be included 

in the regulations. One commenter 

argued that because project performance 

data is strictly quantitative in nature, a 

determination of a grantee’s quality of 

service cannot be made. 

Discussion: We disagree with the 

commenters’ suggestion that the term 

‘‘high quality service delivery’’ needs to 

be defined in the regulations. We also 

disagree that a grantee’s quality of 

service cannot be determined based on 

project performance. As stated in 

section 402A(f)(1) of the HEA and in 

these regulations, the determination of 

an applicant’s prior experience of ‘‘high 

quality service delivery’’ will be based 

on the outcome criteria for the specific 

program. Therefore, a grantee that met 

or exceeded its approved project 

objectives for its expiring grant would 

be considered to have delivered high 

quality services. The Department will 

use data provided by the grantee in the 

APR, as well as audit findings, site visit 

reports, and any other information 

received by the Department to 

determine if the grantee met or 

exceeded these objectives. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: In reviewing proposed 

§§ 643.20(a)(2)(i), 644.20(a)(2)(i), 

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

647.20(a)(2)(i)), we determined that it 

would be clearer to have these sections 

refer to ‘‘outcome criteria’’ rather than to 

‘‘criteria’’ only. This change aligns the 

regulatory language more closely with 

section 402A(f) of the HEA, which refers 

to the specific outcome criteria to be 

used to determine an entity’s prior 

experience (PE) points under the TS, 

UB, SSS, McNair, and EOC programs. 

Changes: We have amended 

§§ 643.20(a)(2)(i), 644.20(a)(2)(i), 

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

647.20(a)(2)(i)) by adding the word 

‘‘outcome’’ before the word ‘‘criteria’’. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Upon further review of 

§§ 643.20(a)(2)(i), 644.20(a)(2)(i), 

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

determined that technical changes were 

needed in these sections. Because the 

HEA now permits entities to submit 

multiple applications to serve different 

populations, campuses, or both, it is 

important that the regulations clarify the 

conditions under which an entity may 

receive PE points for applications for 

new grants (depending on whether the 

new grant will serve the different 

populations, campuses, or both served 

under an expiring grant). The 

Department has revised these 

regulations to clarify that PE points are 

awarded only to the application for a 

new grant that proposes to continue to 

serve substantially the same populations 

and campuses that the applicant is 

serving under an expiring grant. 

Therefore, an entity will not receive PE 

points for (a) applications to serve 

different populations, even if the 

different populations are on the same 

campus as the population or 

populations served by the existing grant, 

or (b) applications to serve a different 

campus altogether. 

Changes: We have amended 

§§ 643.20(a)(2)(i), 644.20(a)(2)(i), 

645.30(a)(2)(i), and 646.20(a)(2)(i) by 

replacing the word ‘‘or’’ after the words 

‘‘same populations’’ with the word 

‘‘and.’’ 

Incorrect Annual Performance Report 

(APR) Data (§§ 642.22(a)(3), 

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

646.22(a)(3), 647.22(a)(3)) 

Comment: The Department received 

numerous comments on the proposed 

regulatory language that would permit 

the Secretary to adjust a PE score or 

decide not to award PE points if other 

information indicates that the APR data 

used to calculate the applicant’s PE are 

incorrect. Several commenters requested 

that the regulations be revised to take 

into consideration projects that 

knowingly provide fraudulent 

information and those that act in good 

faith but inadvertently provide data 

containing errors, so that the 

Department does not penalize projects 

for honest mistakes. Several 

commenters stated that Department 

officials have acknowledged that 

numerous projects have made data 

errors in their APRs, and these 

commenters believe that it is in the best 

interest of the Department and the 

projects to work to correct these errors, 

rather than not to award PE points to 

these projects. 

Discussion: We understand the 

commenters’ concern about data 

reporting errors potentially resulting in 

the loss of PE points for an applicant. 

The Department does not intend to use 

this authority to penalize applicants that 

make reporting errors despite their 

‘‘good faith’’ efforts. However, because 

the Department cannot always tell 

whether an applicant intentionally 

provides false data or if the applicant 

made a mistake in data reporting, we 

believe it is appropriate for the 

Department to have the flexibility to 

address issues of concern in audit 

findings, site visits, or other information 

that identifies problems in a grantee’s 

efforts to meet the established objectives 

on a case-by-case basis. For this reason, 

we decline to make any changes to the 

regulations to distinguish between 

projects that knowingly provide 

fraudulent information and those that 

act in good faith but inadvertently 

provide data containing errors. 

Changes: None. 

Notification of PE Points Awarded 

(§§ 642.22, 643.22, 644.22, 645.32, 

646.22, 647.22) 

Comment: Many commenters 

requested that the Department notify 

grantees of their PE points earned each 

project year within a certain amount of 

time (e.g., 60 to 90 days) after the end 

of the grant period. They also 

recommended that the Department 

provide relevant comments to grantees 

that score less than the maximum 15 PE 

points, to assist the grantees in 

improving their projects in future years. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ suggestions on how to 

improve communication about project 

performance between the Department 

and grantees. The Department provides 

applicants with standardized objectives 

for the relevant TRIO program in the 

application materials for each TRIO 

competition. Applicants then must 

specify their performance targets, and 

grantees report on their progress in 

achieving approved objectives in their 

APR. At the conclusion of each 

competition, grantees receive a 

summary of the PE scoring by 

standardized objective for each of the 

three years assessed. Moreover, the APR 

for each program is designed so that 

grantees should be able to calculate 

their own annual PE scores. However, 

the Department will continue to perfect 

its assessment of PE and find ways to 

provide timely feedback to grantees on 

their projects’ performance. 

Changes: None. 

PE Points for Financial and Economic 

Literacy (§§ 642.22, 643.22, 644.22, 

645.32, 646.22, 647.22) 

Comment: The Department received 

several comments recommending that 

PE points be granted for experience 

providing services to improve 

participants’ financial and economic 

literacy as well as financial aid 

application support. Some commenters 

offered this recommendation for only a 

specific TRIO program. These 

commenters argued that services related 

to financial and economic literacy and 

financial aid support are required by the 

HEA, have been incorporated into 

certain of the TRIO programs’ purposes, 

and are pivotal to helping participants 

prepare for college. Some commenters 

also noted that it makes sense to provide 

PE points for these services, because 

project staff spend a substantial amount 

of time engaged in these services. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65719 

Discussion: The Secretary 

acknowledges that the HEA emphasizes 

the importance of providing or 

connecting participants to services 

related to improving a participant’s 

financial and economic literacy. 

However, the HEA does not list this 

activity as one of the outcome criteria to 

be used for PE points. To remain 

consistent with the statute, which 

requires that the Secretary determine an 

entity’s prior experience based on the 

statutory outcome criteria, the Secretary 

is not adding PE criteria not included in 

section 402A(f) of the HEA. 

Changes: None. 

Timeline for Earning PE Points— 

Postsecondary Completion 

(§§ 643.22(d)(6) (TS), 645.32(e)(1)(vi) 

and (e)(2)(v) (UB)) 

Comment: Several commenters sought 

clarification on the timeframe in which 

UB and TS grantees will be eligible to 

earn the PE points associated with 

meeting their approved objectives for 

postsecondary degree completion, 

particularly if the criterion is evaluated 

after the second, third, and fourth 

program years, given the length of time 

it typically takes a student to complete 

a postsecondary degree. Some 

commenters requested an explanation of 

whether participants under an entity’s 

expired or expiring grant may be 

counted toward meeting approved 

objectives for this criterion. One 

commenter recommended that grantees 

earn PE points for this criterion based 

on either postsecondary academic 

progress (persistence) or completion. 

Discussion: We understand the 

commenters’ concern that applicants 

may not be eligible for all the PE points 

available for each competition, due to 

the amount of time it takes to track 

enrollment in and completion of 

postsecondary education of the 

participants served in the applicants’ 

expired or expiring grants. Under the 

UB program, some applicants would be 

eligible to earn PE points for 

participants they served under earlier 

grants who attain a postsecondary 

degree within the number of years 

specified in the approved objective. 

Because the Department has been 

collecting individual participant data 

through the UB APRs for several years, 

the Department will be able to match 

participant data from prior years to 

determine the extent to which UB 

participants completed programs of 

postsecondary education. 

However, under the TS program, we 

have not been collecting data on the 

academic progress of TS participants 

through postsecondary completion as 

this is a new outcome criterion for this 

program. Therefore, the Department will 

not be able to match participant data 

from prior years to assess the extent to 

which TS participants completed 

programs of postsecondary education. 

Going forward, the Department will 

work with grantees to develop a new 

APR for the TS program that will 

capture the data needed to award PE 

points for postsecondary completion. 

The Department acknowledges that TS 

projects will not be eligible for the PE 

points for postsecondary completion for 

several years. 

Finally, we have not accepted the 

commenter’s suggestion that we award 

PE points under the postsecondary 

completion criteria based on the extent 

to which project participants were 

either still persisting in or had 

completed a program of postsecondary 

education because the requirement of 

the HEA is postsecondary completion, 

not progress or completion. 

Changes: None. 

Years Considered in PE Assessment 

(§§ 643.20(a)(2)(iii), 644.20(a)(2)(iii), 

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

647.20(a)(2)(iv)) 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

expressed concern regarding the 

proposed regulation that would provide 

that the Secretary will designate in the 

Federal Register notice inviting 

applications and other published 

application materials for a competition 

which three years of the expiring five 

year grant period will be considered in 

the PE assessments for new awards. 

Several commenters stated that the 

regulations should specify which three 

years will be used, while a few others 

suggested clarifying that the middle 

three years (i.e., years two through four) 

of the grant cycle would be considered. 

These commenters contended that 

including this information in the 

regulations would reduce confusion 

among grantees as to the timeframe 

evaluated for purposes of determining 

PE points. One commenter 

recommended using data for the four 

years preceding the date of application 

for the new competition. This 

commenter noted that such an approach 

would be consistent with the 

Department’s current system in which 

the average rates of achievement for the 

preceding three years are used. 

Similarly, other commenters had 

concerns that the proposed use of three 

years of project data will fail to take into 

consideration two project years’ worth 

of a project’s performance. 

Discussion: The HEA now provides 

that all TRIO grants will be awarded for 

five years, but the Secretary has 

determined that PE points should be 

assessed for only three of the five year 

project period. In making this 

determination, the Secretary took 

several factors into consideration. First, 

the Department’s experience has 

demonstrated that, for a number of 

reasons, many first-time or new grantees 

do not meet their approved objectives 

for the first year of funding. Not using 

the first year of the grant cycle for PE 

points, therefore, will give new grantees 

time to effectively implement the 

project prior to having its performance 

evaluated for purposes of assessing PE. 

Second, evaluating performance from 

the last year of a project period to 

determine PE points for new awards 

presents a number of challenges. 

Applications for new grants are due 

about a year prior to the end of the 

current grant period and new awards are 

announced several months prior to the 

end of the grant period. Thus, it is not 

possible to consider a project’s 

performance in the fifth year of an 

expiring grant prior to making funding 

decisions for the new grant competition 

because the APR data for the last year 

of the expiring grant would not be 

available for calculating PE points until 

several months after the new grant 

period begins. 

For these reasons, we do not think it 

is appropriate or possible to use the first 

and fifth years of the expiring grant 

cycle to assess PE points for new 

competitions. Generally, we expect that 

the published application materials will 

designate the three middle years of the 

expiring grant (i.e., project years two 

through four). However, designating the 

specific years to be considered in the 

application materials, rather than in the 

regulations, will give the Secretary 

flexibility to address unique situations 

on a competition-by-competition basis. 

For example, there may be situations 

when some grantees started their 

expiring grant period a year or more 

later than other grantees. In such a 

situation, the applicant’s performance 

during the first three years, instead of 

the middle three years, of the expiring 

grant would be used to award PE points. 

The published application materials 

would designate the project years that 

would be used for PE (e.g., 2007–08, 

2008–09, and 2009–10) for all 

applicants in the competition. 

Changes: None. 

Use of Approved Versus Actual 

Number of Participants Served 

(§§ 645.32(d), 646.22(d), 647.22(d)) 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed concerns about the proposal 

that the Secretary will use the approved 

number of participants, or the actual 

number of participants served in a given 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65720 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

year if that number of participants is 

greater than the approved number, as 

the denominator in calculating whether 

the applicant has met its approved 

objectives under its expiring grant to 

earn PE points for the new grant 

application. A few commenters argued 

that a grantee who does not serve the 

approved number of participants is 

penalized in two ways: First, by not 

receiving PE points for the criterion 

measuring whether the approved 

number was served, and, second, by not 

receiving any PE points at all if at least 

90 percent of the approved number was 

not served. These commenters stated 

that using the approved number instead 

of actual number as the denominator in 

PE calculations is unnecessarily 

punitive. Furthermore, one commenter 

recommended that either the actual 

number of participants should be used 

as the denominator or the number of PE 

points associated with serving the 

approved number of participants should 

be reduced. This commenter argued that 

the number of points assigned to this 

criterion, combined with the proposed 

use of the approved number as the 

denominator, makes the penalty for 

projects that do not serve their approved 

number too severe. The commenter 

stated that this concern particularly 

applies to small projects, for which the 

commenter notes that one or two 

students can affect an objective by two 

or more percentage points. 

Discussion: Grant award amounts and 

performance targets are based largely on 

the number of participants a project is 

funded to serve each year of the grant 

period. Therefore, we believe that, for 

those PE criteria applicable to all 

participants served in the project year, 

the denominator should be the greater of 

the approved number of participants to 

be served or the actual number of 

participants served. PE points are 

rewards, and give projects a competitive 

advantage in a subsequent grant 

competition. Therefore, it is reasonable 

to expect a grantee to meet the 

performance targets it proposed and that 

were approved through the grant 

process to earn the maximum number of 

PE points. Therefore, we do not accept 

the commenters’ suggestion not to use 

the approved number as the 

denominator for calculating PE points 

for some objectives or to reduce the PE 

points a project can earn for serving its 

approved number of participants. 

Changes: None. 

PE Criterion Related to Number of 

Participants (§§ 642.22(d) and (e)(1); 

643.22(c) and (d)(1); 644.22(c) and 

(d)(1); 645.32(c), (e)(1)(i), and (e)(2)(i)); 

646.22(c) and (e)(1); 647.22(c) and 

(e)(1)) 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern that the phrase 

‘‘approved number of participants’’ in 

the proposed regulations means that a 

grantee would not receive PE points if 

the project served more than their 

approved number of participants. These 

commenters argued that it is difficult to 

ensure that a project only serves the 

exact number of participants that were 

proposed, as projects often accept more 

participants than they are funded to 

serve to ensure that at least the 

minimum number is met throughout the 

year. Two commenters further noted 

that the phrase ‘‘met or exceeded the 

entity’s objectives’’ is used in several 

areas of the HEOA, suggesting that the 

spirit of the law is for projects to serve 

at least the funded number. Several 

commenters requested that the criterion 

be revised to reflect that the Department 

will examine whether the applicant 

provided services to ‘‘at least the 

approved number of participants’’ or to 

‘‘no less than the approved number of 

participants.’’ 

One commenter suggested that PE 

points for serving the approved number 

of participants should be commensurate 

with the percentage of the approved 

number that was served. Two 

commenters suggested that the 

regulatory provision that states that the 

Secretary does not award PE points to 

a grantee that does not serve at least 90 

percent of the approved number of 

participants conflicts with the separate 

regulatory provision that states that the 

Secretary does not award PE points for 

the criterion measuring whether the 

grantee served the approved number if 

the approved number is not served. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that the use of the words ‘‘approved 

number’’ in the ‘‘Number of participants’’ 

PE criterion regulations may be 

confusing. We did not intend for this 

provision to imply that a project could 

not serve more than the approved 

number of participants. Therefore, we 

have accepted the commenters’ 

recommendations to revise the 

regulatory language to make it clear that 

a project can serve more than the 

approved number of participants. 

We note, however, that for a grantee 

to receive PE points for this criterion, 

the project must meet or exceed the 

approved number that it has been 

funded to serve; no partial credit will be 

given for this criterion to a grantee that 

served fewer than the approved number. 

The commenters’ concern that the PE 

criteria conflict with each other is based 

on a misunderstanding. The two criteria 

are complementary. First, to be eligible 

to receive any PE points for a given year, 

a grantee must have served at least 90 

percent of the participants it was funded 

to serve. For example, if a project was 

funded to serve 100 participants but 

only served 85 participants (85 percent 

of the approved number), the grantee 

would receive no PE points for that 

project year because it did not serve at 

least 90 percent of its funded number. 

Second, if a grantee serves at least 90 

percent of the number of participants it 

was funded to serve but did not serve 

100 percent of the approved number of 

participants (e.g., project was funded to 

serve 100 participants but only served 

98 participants), the grantee would not 

receive any points for the ‘‘Number of 

participants’’ criterion. However, the 

grantee would be eligible to earn up to 

12 PE points based on whether or not 

the project achieved its other PE 

objectives. 

Changes: We have amended 

§§ 642.22(d); 643.22(c); 644.22(c); 

645.32(c); 646.22(c); 647.22(c)) to clarify 

that the Secretary does not award PE 

points if the applicant did not serve at 

least the approved number of 

participants. In addition, we have 

amended the Number of participants 

criterion in §§ 642.22(e)(1), 643.22(d)(1), 

644.22(d)(1), 645.32 (e)(1)(i) and 

(e)(2)(i); 646.22(e)(1); and 647.22(e)(1) to 

clarify that the award of PE points for 

that criterion is based on whether the 

applicant provided services to no less 

than the approved number of 

participants. 

Review Process for Unsuccessful 

Federal TRIO Program Applicants 

Percentage of Funds Set Aside for 

Secondary Review Competition 

(§§ 642.25(d) (Training), 643.24(d) (TS), 

644.24(d) (EOC), 645.35(d) (UB), 

646.24(d) (SSS), and 647.24(d) 

(McNair)) 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested clarification of some of the 

procedures and processes proposed for 

the second review of unsuccessful grant 

applications. Several commenters 

wanted to know the percentage of 

competition funds that would be 

reserved for the second review or how 

the Department would determine the 

percentage of funds set aside for grants 

after the second review. Commenters 

also expressed concern that some of the 

funds reserved for awards after the 

second review might not be awarded 

and recommended that the regulations 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65721 

be modified to allow for and explain the 

equitable disbursement of unused 

reserved funds. 

Discussion: To implement the new 

statutory requirement that unsuccessful 

applicants may request a second review 

of their applications under certain 

conditions, the Department proposed 

and, through these final regulations, 

adopts a two-slate process. After the 

peer review of applications and the 

awarding of PE points, as applicable, the 

Department will rank all the 

applications. The Department then will 

establish a funding band to determine 

the percentage of the total funds allotted 

for the competition that will be set aside 

for the second review (for example, we 

might set aside six percent of the total 

funds allotted for the competition). The 

determination of the percentage of funds 

to be reserved for the second review and 

the applications to be included in the 

funding band will be based on the 

distribution of application scores. For 

example, we expect to include in the 

funding band all applications that 

scored within two or three points below 

the initial cut-off score. 

The funding band for each 

competition will include all of the 

applications with a rank-order score that 

is below the lowest score of applications 

funded after the first review and that 

would be funded if the Secretary had 

150 percent of the funds that were set 

aside for the second review (e.g. nine 

percent of funds). 

The first slate of new awards will be 

made based on the rank-order of the 

applications using the amount of funds 

available for the competition minus the 

amount of funds set aside for the second 

review of unsuccessful applications 

(e.g., six percent). 

Only those unsuccessful applicants 

whose applications scored within the 

funding band will be eligible for the 

second review. In addition, those 

applicants eligible for the second review 

will have to provide evidence 

demonstrating that the Department, an 

agent of the Department, or a peer 

reviewer made an administrative or 

scoring error (as defined in the 

regulations) in the review of its 

application. 

If the Department determines that 

there was an administrative error in the 

review of an application (which 

includes mathematical errors in the 

calculation of PE points or assigning the 

earned PE points or the peer reviewers’ 

scores to the wrong application) the 

Department will correct the error and 

adjust the score assigned to the 

application as appropriate. If the 

adjusted score assigned to the 

application would place the application 

above the cut-off score for funding 

under the first slate, the application will 

be funded (if funds are available) prior 

to the re-ranking of applications based 

on the second peer review of 

unsuccessful applications. 

If there is an error in how the peer 

reviewers scored an application (see 

§§ 642.25(b)(3) (Training); 643.24(b)(3) 

(TS); 644.24(b)(3) (EOC); 645.35(b)(3) 

(UB); 646.24(b)(3) (SSS); and 

647.24(b)(3) (McNair)), a second peer 

review panel will review the 

application. After all of the second 

reviews are completed, a second rankorder slate of applications in the 

funding band will be prepared. The 

rankings in the second slate will be 

based on the new reviewers’ score for 

those applications that were read by a 

second peer review panel; any applicant 

in the funding band that did not request 

or receive a second review will be 

ranked based on its original score. 

Applications in the funding band will 

be funded based on the second rank 

order slate until all the available funds 

are committed. 

The decision to use a funding band 

and the specific parameters for the 

funding band are based on the 

Department’s experience. In the past, 

adjustments for administrative and 

scoring errors have resulted in a score 

increase of no more than two or three 

points; therefore, under these 

regulations, the funding band will 

include only those applications that 

have a reasonable chance of being 

funded if the second review of the 

application resulted in an adjustment to 

the score. By selecting those 

applications with an original score that 

is most likely to have a chance of being 

funded after a second review, the 

Department will be better able to 

effectively manage the grant 

competition and make timely funding 

decisions. 

The funding band approach to the 

second review process ensures that 

eligible applicants have a meaningful 

opportunity to request a second review 

while ensuring that the Department can 

provide timely notice of grant awards. 

It is important to note that not every 

application selected for inclusion in the 

funding band will be awarded a grant. 

As discussed elsewhere in this 

preamble, we will put aside an 

appropriate amount of funds for grants 

awarded after the second review, but 

those funds will not be sufficient to 

provide funding for all applicants in the 

funding band. However, this process 

will ensure that we obligate all of the 

funds available for new grants and that 

there is no lapse of funds. 

Changes: None. 

Number of Days To Prepare and Submit 

a Written Request for a Second Review 

(§§ 642.25(c)(5) and (6)(Training), 

643.24(c)(5) and (c)(6)(TS), 644.24(c)(5) 

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

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

647.24(c)(5) and (c)(6) (McNair)) 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the proposed regulations by 

increasing the 15 calendar days to 

prepare a written request for a second 

review to 30 to 45 calendar days. These 

commenters stated that 15 days is not 

enough time for unsuccessful applicants 

to receive and review the reader’s 

evaluations and prepare an appropriate 

request for a secondary review to the 

Department. Five commenters expressed 

concern that the amount of time it takes 

to deliver and receive mail, especially 

for applicants in the Pacific, would 

reduce the amount of time applicants 

would have to respond and request a 

secondary review. Other commenters 

gave examples of circumstances that 

could interfere with an applicant’s 

ability to respond within the proposed 

15 day period, such as the need to get 

appropriate signatures, delays resulting 

from the institution being closed for 

vacations or furloughed days, or delays 

in getting the peer reviewers’ comments 

and the assessments of PE points. 

Another commenter suggested that the 

Department provide a grantee with its 

PE score annually to provide more time 

in which to do the research needed to 

appeal the assigned PE score. One 

commenter also noted that the 

regulations seemed contradictory in 

providing that the applicant will have 

15 calendar days to submit a written 

request but then also stating that the 

written request for a second review 

must be received by the Department by 

the due date and time established by the 

Secretary. 

Discussion: We understand the time 

constraints institutions may face in 

submitting their request for a second 

review and supporting information in a 

timely manner. However, the statutory 

requirement for a second review process 

adds several new steps to the 

competition schedule. Consequently, we 

must compress many stages of the 

competition to incorporate these new 

procedures into the competition 

schedule so that we meet our legal 

obligation to commit all appropriated 

funds by the end of the fiscal year. 

The Department will establish 

internal procedures to ensure that 

applicants in the funding band receive 

at least 15 days after receiving 

notification that their applications were 

not funded in which to submit a written 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65722 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

request for a second review. At the time 

of notification, these applicants will 

receive copies of the peer reviewers’ 

written evaluations and, if applicable, a 

report detailing how the PE score was 

calculated. We will use multiple 

notification methods (e.g., electronic 

mail, overnight mail) to ensure 

applicants will have at least 15 days 

from receipt of the notification in which 

to respond. Applicants will also be 

permitted to submit their responses 

electronically. Further, our Web site 

will provide applicants with updated 

information as to when funding 

decisions might be announced and the 

proposed schedule for the second 

review so applicants can ensure that 

staff are available to prepare a request 

for a second review, if appropriate. 

In establishing a due date and time for 

receipt of the applicant’s written request 

for a second review, the Department 

will give applicants at least 15 days in 

which to respond. 

Changes: We have amended 

§§ 642.25(c)(5), 643.24(c)(5), 

644.24(c)(5), 645.35(c)(5), 646.24(c)(5), 

and 647.24(c)(5) to clarify that 

unsuccessful applicants who are within 

the funding band will have at least 15 

calendar days in which to submit a 

written request for a second review. 

Technical or Administrative Errors 

(§§ 642.25(a)(3) (Training), 643.24(a)(3) 

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

(UB), 646.24(a)(3)(SSS), and 

647.24(a)(3) (McNair)) 

Comment: Three commenters 

suggested that if a technical or 

administrative error by the Department 

or a peer reviewer results in an 

application not being reviewed, the 

applicant should automatically receive a 

grant even if program funds are not 

available. 

Discussion: We cannot accept the 

suggestion made by the commenters. If 

correcting a technical or administrative 

error results in the application receiving 

a score above the cut-off score for 

funding under the first slate, the 

application would be funded prior to 

the re-ranking of applications based on 

the second peer review of unsuccessful 

applications. Therefore, we do not 

anticipate a situation in which funds 

would not be available to fund these 

applications. However, we do not have 

the legal authority to commit funds that 

we do not have and the regulations must 

include the statement ‘‘provided funds 

are available’’. 

Changes: None. 

Criteria for Scoring Errors on 

Applications That Were Reviewed 

(§§ 642.25(b)(3) (Training), 643.24(b)(3) 

(TS), 644.24(b)(3) (EOC), 645.35(b)(3) 

(UB), 646.24(b)(3)(SSS), and 

647.24(b)(3) (McNair)) 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that the criteria proposed in the 

regulations for demonstrating scoring 

errors in the evaluation of the 

application are too narrow and should 

include other criteria that take into 

account possibilities such as human 

error on the part of the reader. Another 

commenter asserted that the reader’s 

professional judgment should be 

considered as a type of scoring error in 

determining whether or not an 

application is eligible for a secondary 

review. This commenter expressed the 

opinion that readers do not have the 

appropriate knowledge to adequately 

judge whether or not an applicant can 

meet the objectives set forth in the 

application. Another commenter was 

concerned about readers who may 

misread or misinterpret information 

provided in the application. 

Discussion: We do not agree with 

these comments. We believe that the 

regulations appropriately define the 

type of error that should be considered 

a technical, administrative or scoring 

error and would warrant a second 

review of an application. We disagree 

with the suggestion that the professional 

judgment of the peer reviewers should 

be subject to review as a scoring error. 

The HEA requires that each application 

be reviewed by a panel of non-Federal 

peer reviewers. These experts have 

programmatic knowledge and 

experience in serving low-income, firstgeneration students and in 

administering student assistance 

programs. As required by Congress, we 

rely on their expertise to make 

judgments about the quality of the 

applications under review. The readers 

appropriately exercise their judgment in 

providing scores on the applications 

and a low score is not evidence of an 

error by the reviewer. We also do not 

agree that the reader’s interpretation of 

an application should be a basis for 

review. It is the applicant’s 

responsibility to make sure the 

information provided in the application 

is clear and understandable. 

Changes: None. 

Timely Notification of Applications 

Determined To Be Ineligible Because of 

a Technical or Administrative Error 

(§§ 642.25(a) (Training), 643.24(a) (TS), 

644.24(a) (EOC), 645.35(a) (UB), 

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

(McNair)) 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that the regulations should require the 

Secretary to provide timely notification 

to an applicant whose application was 

not reviewed because it was determined 

to be ineligible, so that the applicant 

would have sufficient time to appeal the 

decision prior to the conduct of the peer 

review process. 

Discussion: To the extent feasible, the 

Department notifies applicants who 

were determined to be ineligible in 

writing prior to the start of the peer 

review of applications or as soon as 

possible thereafter. Under these 

regulations, if it is determined that the 

Department or the Department’s agent 

made a technical or administrative 

error, as defined in the regulations, in 

making that determination the 

application will be evaluated and 

scored. If the total score assigned the 

application would have resulted in the 

funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds 

available, the application will be funded 

prior to the re-ranking and funding of 

applications after the second review. 

Changes: None. 

Final Decision (§§ 642.25(e) (Training), 

643.24(e) (TS), 644.24(e) (EOC), 

645.35(e) (UB), 646.24(e) (SSS), and 

647.24(e) (McNair)) 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concern that scoring errors 

also could occur during the secondary 

review process. For this reason, the 

commenters suggested that applicants 

be allowed to appeal the decision of the 

secondary review process. 

Discussion: The Secretary disagrees 

with the suggestion that an applicant 

should be permitted to appeal the 

decision of the secondary review 

process. The second review provides a 

formal process for addressing scoring 

errors made during the first review that 

might impact the funding of an 

application. Appealing the decision of 

the second review is beyond the 

requirements of the statute and would 

interfere with the timely awarding of 

grants under the competition. 

Changes: None. 

Eliminate the Second Review (§§ 642.25 

(Training), 643.24 (TS), 644.24 (EOC), 

645.35 (UB), 646.24 (SSS), and 647.24 

(McNair)) 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that we remove from the regulations the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65723 

entire section on the review process for 

unsuccessful applicants because it 

would increase the Department’s 

administrative burden and would 

increase administrative costs, resulting 

in fewer projects being funded and 

fewer students being served. 

Discussion: The HEA requires the 

creation of the second review process 

for unsuccessful applications. The 

Department does not have the authority 

to eliminate this statutorily required 

process. 

Changes: None. 

Training Program for Federal TRIO 

Programs (34 CFR part 642) What is the 

Training Program for Federal TRIO 

Programs? (§ 642.1) 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that it is difficult for Training 

Program grantees to meet the minimum 

requirements for the number of TRIO 

professionals that they must train. The 

commenter suggested making awards in 

a way that allows grantees to structure 

training sessions to be more focused, 

such as training for specific programs 

(e.g., for only Upward Bound staff or 

Talent Search staff), only new directors 

or staff, or only seasoned staff, to reduce 

the competition among grantees for the 

same audiences. In addition, the 

commenter urged the Department to 

ensure that TRIO professionals are able 

to take advantage of training 

opportunities by requiring directors to 

send staff to the trainings. 

Discussion: Section 402G(b) of the 

HEA requires Training Program grantees 

to offer training annually for new 

directors of TRIO projects as well as 

annual training on topics specified in 

the statute and other topics chosen by 

the Secretary. If grantees are offering 

training to the same audiences and are 

unable to attract appropriate numbers of 

participants, rather than changing the 

requirements on the number of project 

staff a Training grant must serve, the 

Secretary may consider reducing the 

number of grants available under this 

program while still ensuring that 

training is available throughout the 

Nation. Although the Secretary hopes 

that TRIO professionals will be able to 

take advantage of these training 

opportunities, the Secretary does not 

want to require their participation. It is 

the responsibility of each TRIO director 

to determine which staff could benefit 

from the offered training and how much 

of the project budget should be used for 

this purpose and to make decisions 

about staff participation in trainings 

under the TRIO Training program 

accordingly. 

Changes: None. 

What activities does the Secretary 

assist? (§ 642.11) 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department remove the 

requirement that Training Program 

projects offer training covering strategies 

for recruiting and serving hard-to-reach 

populations, as reflected in 

§ 642.11(b)(5). The commenter 

maintained that it does not make sense 

to include this requirement because 

some of the TRIO programs, such as 

McNair and Upward Bound MathScience (UBMS), are not required to 

serve these populations. The commenter 

suggested that the Department make this 

a permissible training topic that could 

be combined with other topics. 

Discussion: In section 402G(b)(5) of 

the HEA, as amended by section 403(g) 

of the HEOA, Congress added training 

on strategies for recruiting and serving 

hard to reach populations to the list of 

required training that must be offered 

annually. Therefore, we do not have the 

authority to remove this requirement or 

to make it a permissive topic. The 

Federal Register notice inviting 

applications will provide applicants 

with additional guidance regarding the 

types of TRIO staff that should be 

offered training on this topic. 

Changes: None. 

How does the Secretary evaluate an 

application for a new award? (§ 642.20) 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that, in making awards under the 

Training Program, the Department 

should take into consideration the 

diversity of training topics and the 

opportunities for TRIO professionals to 

attend training. The commenter also 

suggested that the Secretary make only 

one award for each major training topic 

to ensure that comprehensive training is 

available for TRIO staff. 

Discussion: For each competition for 

grants under the Training Program, the 

notice inviting applications will identify 

the training priorities (from the list of 

priorities in § 642.24) for the 

competition and the expected number of 

Training projects to be funded under 

each priority. Under section 402G(b) of 

the HEA, training must be offered each 

year for new project directors and for 

each of the topics listed in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (b)(5) of that section and 

in § 642.11. The required topics provide 

the appropriate diversity and 

opportunities for training. 

Changes: None. 

What are the Secretary’s priorities for 

funding? (§§ 642.7 and 642.24) 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Upon further 

departmental review of § 642.7 and 

newly redesignated § 642.24, we have 

determined that the provisions should 

be clearer with regard to the 

implementation of the Secretary’s 

authority to select and designate 

training priorities. Proposed § 642.7 

stated that an applicant may submit 

more than one application for Training 

grants as long as each application 

described a project that addresses a 

different absolute priority designated in 

the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications. The absolute priorities are 

from the list of training priorities in 

newly redesignated § 642.24. We have 

made a change to § 642.24 to make this 

clearer. In addition, while § 642.7 states 

that the Secretary designates the 

absolute priorities in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications, 

newly redesignated § 642.24, as 

proposed, did not include 

corresponding language. For the sake of 

clarity, therefore, we have added 

language to § 642.24 that states that the 

Secretary designates one or more of the 

priorities in § 642.24 in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications for 

the competition. 

Changes: We have added language to 

§ 642.7 to clarify that the absolute 

priorities designated in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications are 

from the list of training priorities in 

§ 642.24. We also have added paragraph 

(c) to newly redesignated § 642.24 to 

clarify that, for each competition, the 

Secretary designates one or more 

training priorities in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

advocated expanding the Secretary’s list 

of priorities for the Training Program to 

include additional priorities, such as the 

provision of counseling services 

designed to improve financial and 

economic literacy. The commenters 

argued that additional priorities should 

be included as priorities in § 642.24 to 

reflect the emphasis on these activities 

in the HEA. 

Discussion: Section 642.11(b) reflects 

the list of training topics required by 

section 402G(b) of the HEA. Section 

642.24 reflects the Secretary’s statutory 

authority to designate—in a notice 

inviting applications for a 

competition—one or more subjects as 

training priorities for grantees. In 

exercising the authority provided in 

§ 642.24, the Secretary may consider the 

priorities suggested by the commenters 

for future competitions. 

Changes: None. 

Talent Search (TS) Program (34 CFR 

Part 643) 

The Secretary has changed the current 

TS Program regulations to implement 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65724 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the changes made to the program by 

sections 403(a) and (b) of the HEOA. 

The HEOA made changes to the goals 

and purposes of the TS program through 

the addition of statutory outcome 

criteria and required activities. These 

HEOA changes require TS grantees to 

provide more intensive academic 

interventions than they have in the past. 

As we discuss subsequently under the 

applicable sections of the regulations, 

the Department received many 

comments and questions about the new 

TS program requirements, particularly 

with regard to the requirements relating 

to a rigorous secondary school program 

of study. Numerous commenters 

expressed concerns that funding levels 

would be insufficient to provide the 

required services and activities to the 

number of students currently being 

served and recommended that, if 

additional funding were not available 

for TS, grantees should be permitted to 

reduce the number of students to be 

served. Some commenters suggested 

that the proposed regulations would 

require grantees to implement a twotiered program of service delivery—the 

first tier would support participants 

completing a rigorous curriculum and 

the second tier would provide college 

preparatory education for those 

participants not taking a rigorous 

secondary school program of study. 

The Department also received 

comments requesting additional 

guidance regarding the Department’s 

expectations for the cost-effective 

delivery of services for students in a 

rigorous program of study. 

As discussed in the NPRM, in light of 

the changes made to the HEA, the 

Department has removed from the 

regulations the requirement that a TS 

grantee must serve a specific minimum 

number of participants. Instead, the 

Secretary will identify the minimum 

number of participants a TS grantee 

must serve each year of a grant cycle in 

the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for the grant competition. 

This approach will give the Department 

the flexibility to establish the minimum 

number of participants to be served 

based on the available resources and 

other priorities for each competition, 

and to adjust these numbers for 

subsequent competitions based on 

experience, changing priorities, and cost 

analyses. 

Further, the Department 

acknowledges that some of the proposed 

regulations with regard to the rigorous 

program of study would impose a 

significant burden on grantees and 

could not be fully implemented without 

substantial increases in program 

funding or large reductions in the 

number of participants served. 

Therefore, as discussed in more detail in 

the following sections, we have revised 

many of the proposed regulations 

related to the rigorous program of study. 

For example, instead of requiring TS 

grantees to provide many of the services 

a participant may need to complete a 

rigorous program of study, the 

Department is encouraging all TS 

projects to work in a coordinated, 

collaborative, and cost-effective manner 

with the target schools or school system 

and other programs for disadvantaged 

students to provide TS participants with 

access to and assistance in completing 

a rigorous secondary school program of 

study. 

The Department also plans to provide 

additional guidance to applicants on 

how to respond to the new program 

requirements and outcome criteria in 

the published application materials. In 

addition, the Department will conduct 

10 pre-application workshops to assist 

persons interested in applying for TS 

grants and will post a list of frequently 

asked questions on the TRIO Programs 

Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/about/ 

offices/list/ope/trio/index.html. 

What is the Talent Search program? 

(§ 643.1) 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed dissatisfaction with the 

language that the Secretary proposed to 

add to this section. The commenters 

expressed concern that it appeared that 

the TS program is no longer focused on 

its historically targeted audiences of 

middle and high school students 

because TS projects are now expected to 

also ‘‘encourage’’ persons who have not 

completed postsecondary education to 

‘‘complete such programs.’’ The 

commenters argued that working with 

persons to complete a program of 

postsecondary education is beyond the 

scope of the TS program. 

Discussion: We do not have the 

discretion to make the changes 

suggested by the commenters because 

the regulatory language at issue is 

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

HEA. 

Changes: None. 

Who is eligible for a grant? (§ 643.2) 

Comment: Many commenters 

questioned the practicality or need to 

include secondary schools and 

community-based organizations as 

eligible grantees for the TS program and 

suggested that the regulations be 

modified to exclude these entities from 

being eligible applicants. 

Discussion: We cannot make the 

changes required by the commenters. 

Congress amended section 402A(b)(1) of 

the HEA to eliminate the limitation on 

the eligibility of secondary schools and 

to include community-based 

organizations in the definition of public 

and private agencies that are eligible for 

the TS program. 

Changes: None. 

Who is eligible to participate in a 

project? (§ 643.3) 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the regulations retain 

the requirement, reflected in current 

§ 643.3(a)(3)(ii) that a participant have 

the ability to complete a program of 

postsecondary education. Some 

commenters requested that the 

participant eligibility requirements 

concerning individuals receiving 

support to complete a rigorous 

secondary school program of study be 

removed from § 643.3(b). A majority of 

the comments on § 643.3 concerned the 

requirement that an individual is 

eligible to receive support to complete 

a rigorous secondary school program of 

study only if the individual is accepted 

into the TS program by the end of the 

first term of the tenth grade. Some of 

these commenters recommended that 

this provision be changed to allow 

individuals who are accepted into the 

TS program by the end of the 10th grade 

academic year. Another one of these 

commenters suggested that identifying 

students for a rigorous secondary school 

program of study in the 9th grade 

presents a challenge due to the mobility 

and attrition issues that TS projects 

encounter, which make it difficult to 

identify a cohort of students to follow 

for four years. This commenter noted 

that projects in rural States, in 

particular, have these challenges 

because the number of schools in which 

services can be provided would be 

small. The commenter suggested that we 

amend the regulations to identify an 

overall percentage of the total number of 

high school students served by a project 

who will complete a rigorous secondary 

school program of study by the end of 

their senior year. Other commenters also 

stated that this provision was too 

restrictive and recommended that TS 

projects be given more flexibility to 

recruit, select, and provide additional 

services for students among all grade 

levels. Some commenters argued that 

using TS funds for a rigorous secondary 

school program of study is a misplaced 

priority and that funds would be better 

utilized providing services aimed at the 

6th through 8th grade population. 

Discussion: We have not accepted the 

commenters’ recommendation with 

regard to retaining § 643.3(a)(3)(ii) 

because we amended this provision to 

comply with the changes made by 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65725 

section 403(b)(1)(B) of the HEOA to 

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

However, in response to other 

comments, we have decided not to 

include in these final regulations the 

participant eligibility requirements for 

the rigorous secondary school program 

of study that were reflected in proposed 

§ 643.3(b). We have been convinced by 

the commenters that this provision 

would have imposed a significant 

burden on grantees by adding additional 

participant eligibility criteria for those 

participants needing assistance in 

completing a rigorous secondary school 

program of study. Also, after 

considering the comments, we have 

decided that TS projects should 

encourage all participants, not just those 

in high school, to undertake a rigorous 

secondary school program of study and 

should coordinate and collaborate with 

the target schools or school system and 

other programs for disadvantaged 

students to provide all TS participants 

with access to and assistance in 

completing a rigorous secondary school 

program of study. 

In response to the comment that using 

TS funds for a rigorous secondary 

school program of study is a misplaced 

priority and that funds would be better 

utilized providing services aimed at the 

6th through 8th grade population, we 

note that section 402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the 

HEA now requires TS grantees to assist 

participants in completing a rigorous 

program of study; therefore, we require 

this assistance in the regulations. 

However, these final regulations reflect 

changes we have made to the proposed 

regulations that should help reduce the 

costs to the TS project of providing 

these services. Encouraging participants 

to pursue a rigorous program of study 

should be part of the services a TS 

project provides to participants in the 

6th through 8th grades. 

Changes: We have amended the 

regulations by removing proposed 

§ 643.3(b). As a result, current 

§ 643.3(b), which would have been 

redesignated as § 643.3(c), remains 

unchanged as § 643.3(b) in these final 

regulations. 

What services does a project provide? 

(§ 643.4) 

Comment: The majority of individuals 

who commented on § 643.4 suggested 

that the required services listed in 

§ 643.4(a) were too burdensome, time 

intensive, cost prohibitive, or 

impractical for TS grantees and should 

be eliminated. One commenter 

suggested that these services should be 

allowable but not required. One 

commenter requested that we revise 

section § 643.4(b) to clarify that grantees 

may provide additional activities that 

are not included in the list of 

permissible services from the TRIO 

statute provided that these activities 

meet the goals of the TS program. 

Discussion: Section 643.4(a) includes 

the list of ‘‘Required Services’’ for a TS 

project, as mandated by section 402B(b) 

of the HEA. We do not have the 

discretion to eliminate these required 

services or to make them permissible. 

However, a grantee may provide the 

required services itself or through 

linkages with other organizations. 

Moreover, while a grantee must make all 

of the required services listed in 

§ 643.4(a) available to its participants, 

not all TS participants may need all of 

the services or may choose not to take 

advantage of them. We did not intend 

for the regulations to prohibit grantees 

from offering additional services to meet 

the goals of the program; grantees may 

offer additional services not explicitly 

mentioned as required or permissible. 

Therefore, we have revised § 643.4(b) to 

reflect that intent more clearly. 

Changes: We have revised § 643.4(b) 

by adding paragraph (b)(8), which 

clarifies that a TS project may provide 

services other than those specified in 

§ 643.4(b)(1) through (b)(7) that are 

designed to meet the purposes of the TS 

program. 

What definitions apply? (§ 643.7) 

Regular Secondary School Diploma 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the definition for the 

term regular secondary school diploma 

be removed from the TS regulations 

because the assumption would 

otherwise be that any secondary school 

diploma would be a regular diploma. 

Many commenters asked what criteria 

the Secretary will use to determine 

whether a diploma constitutes a regular 

secondary school diploma under this 

definition. Other commenters suggested 

that we revise § 643.7 to define the term 

regular secondary school diploma with 

more specificity. Several commenters 

indicated that beginning in 2014 a 

‘‘regular’’ diploma within their State will 

be the same as a diploma for completing 

the State’s rigorous secondary school 

program of study. 

In addition, several commenters 

requested that the definition for the 

term regular secondary school diploma 

be revised to include a timeline for the 

‘‘standard number of years’’ in which 

participants would complete secondary 

school. A number of the commenters 

suggested that there was some confusion 

as to whether the phrase ‘‘standard 

number of years,’’ as used in 

§§ 643.21(a)(3) (selection criteria) and 

643.22(d)(3) (criteria for calculating PE 

points) would be considered to end at 

the conclusion of the academic year or 

at the conclusion of a summer session. 

The commenters indicated that this 

difference would be significant due to 

the fact that some States require exit 

examinations. In these States, if a 

student does not graduate at the end of 

the academic year, he or she still has the 

opportunity to pass the examination 

during the summer. These commenters 

argued, therefore, that if the meaning of 

the phrase ‘‘standard number of years’’ 

includes the summer period, a project 

would be able to include as graduates 

those students who pass the 

examination in the summer. The 

commenters asked the Department to 

revise the definition of regular 

secondary school diploma to clarify 

whether to meet this definition a 

diploma must be obtained within the 

academic year. 

Discussion: Because we recognize that 

State policies concerning the 

requirement for a regular secondary 

school diploma may differ, we proposed 

a regulatory definition for this term that 

is broad enough to encompass varying 

requirements for a regular secondary 

school diploma. We do not agree with 

the commenters’ suggestion that this 

definition be removed; we believe that 

the definition clarifies for grantees that 

their respective State standards should 

be used to determine whether a 

participant has attained a regular 

secondary school diploma. 

With regard to the comments 

concerning the meaning of the phrase 

‘‘standard number of years,’’ we 

acknowledge that there are a variety of 

State policies concerning graduation 

requirements, including exit 

examinations. We also appreciate that 

some States may not define what 

timeframe constitutes a ‘‘standard 

number of years’’ for high school 

graduation with a regular secondary 

school diploma; and, therefore, we 

should establish a consistent point of 

measurement for determining a 

grantee’s performance under the 

outcome criterion for high school 

graduation with a regular secondary 

school diploma. The National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) generally 

measures ‘‘on time’’ high school 

graduation (i.e., graduating within the 

standard number of years) as receiving 

a regular diploma within four years of 

entering ninth grade, which is 

consistent with the general approach to 

measurement and with high school 

graduation rates determined under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65726 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

The Department interprets the 

standard number of years for high 

school graduation with a regular 

secondary school diploma generally to 

be one grade per year from the 

beginning of high school, which is 

usually ninth grade. Further, consistent 

with the ESEA regulations, in 34 CFR 

200.19(b)(1)(iii), a student who passes 

the exit examinations for a regular high 

school diploma during the summer after 

the senior year would be considered to 

have graduated within the standard 

number of years. Finally, a student who 

graduates prior to the conclusion of a 

student’s fourth (or final) year of high 

school would also be considered to have 

graduated within the standard number 

of years. 

Changes: None. 

Definition of Rigorous Secondary School 

Program of Study 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that a dual enrollment 

program should be considered as 

meeting the TS definition of a rigorous 

secondary school program of study. The 

commenters also recommended that this 

definition be revised to include as a 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study a secondary school program in 

which a student completed at least two 

dual enrollment courses for which the 

student received a grade of ‘‘B¥’’ or 

better and college credit. Another 

commenter suggested adding to the type 

of rigorous secondary school program of 

study described in paragraph (3)(iii) of 

the definition the requirement that 

students must successfully complete, at 

minimum, courses in Anatomy/ 

Physiology, Physical Science, and 

Environmental Science. Another 

commenter asked whether the language 

in paragraph (3) of the definition that 

provides that a rigorous secondary 

school program of study include one 

year of a language other than English 

would be satisfied by computer science 

coursework. 

Several commenters asked whether 

the types of programs described in 

paragraphs (3) and (4) of the definition 

of rigorous secondary school program of 

study are redundant. The commenters 

stated that the State Scholars Initiative 

of the Western Interstate Commission 

for Higher Education (WICHE) requires 

the same coursework as that listed in 

the type of program described in 

paragraph (3) of the definition. 

Therefore, under the WICHE 

standards, any student who completes a 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study under paragraph (4) of the 

definition would also have completed a 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study that satisfies paragraph (3) of the 

definition. Several commenters 

suggested that the definition of a 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study be amended to provide a common 

single definition instead of including 

several types of programs that meet this 

definition, so grant applications can be 

judged and scored using a common 

definition. Other commenters indicated 

that they believed that the presentation 

of the six types of programs that would 

meet the definition of a rigorous 

secondary school program of study 

suggests that an individual program of 

study would have to meet all six options 

to meet the definition. They suggested 

that the definition be clarified by 

including the word ‘‘or’’ after each of the 

first five paragraphs. Another 

commenter suggested that the 

Department add the words ‘‘one of the 

following’’ to the definition to clarify 

that any one of the listed options meets 

the definition of rigorous secondary 

school program of study. 

Discussion: The Secretary disagrees 

with the commenters who suggested 

that completion of either a dual 

enrollment program or a secondary 

school program that includes two dual 

enrollment courses with a grade of B¥ 

or better should qualify as a rigorous 

secondary school program of study. We 

do not believe all dual enrollment 

programs or courses are rigorous enough 

to support either of these approaches. Of 

course, a dual enrollment program or 

secondary school program that includes 

dual enrollment courses that otherwise 

meets one of the criteria in the 

definition in the regulations would 

qualify as a rigorous secondary school 

program of study. 

The Secretary also does not agree with 

the suggestion to add additional 

required coursework to the definition or 

with the suggestion to provide a single 

definition of a rigorous program of 

study. These suggestions would make 

the definition overly restrictive and 

might limit the States’ authority to 

establish curricular standards. 

A project, if using the criteria for a 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study in paragraph (3), cannot substitute 

a computer science course for one year 

of a language other than English. 

However, the specific course 

requirements for a rigorous secondary 

school program of study in paragraphs 

(1), (2), (4), (5), and (6) may differ from 

those in paragraph (3). 

Further, we believe that the criteria 

provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) in the 

definition of a rigorous secondary 

school program of study are sufficiently 

different in content and should not be 

combined into a single criterion. While 

some programs may meet both 

paragraphs (3) and (4), this will not 

always be the case. We note, for 

example, that the WICHE course 

requirements are more specific than 

those described in paragraph (3) of the 

definition. Under paragraph (3) of the 

definition, a program of study must 

include three years of science, including 

one year each of at least two of the 

following courses: Biology, chemistry, 

and physics; in contrast, under WICHE 

requirements, a program of study must 

require that students complete courses 

in all three of these subjects. A program 

of study that meets paragraph (4) of the 

definition, therefore, will also meet the 

criteria under paragraph (3) of the 

definition, but the reverse is not true. 

Finally, we do not believe it is necessary 

to add the word ‘‘or’’ after each criterion 

in this definition. The definition 

provides that a program meeting any 

one of paragraphs (1) through (6) would 

satisfy the definition of rigorous 

secondary school program of study. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters noted 

that the term ‘‘rigorous secondary school 

diploma’’ was not defined in the TS 

regulations. 

Discussion: We inadvertently referred 

to ‘‘rigorous secondary school diploma’’ 

in the amendatory language when we 

meant ‘‘rigorous secondary school 

program of study,’’ and have corrected 

this typographical error. 

Change: We have corrected the 

typographical error in the amendatory 

language describing the changes to 

§ 643.7(b). 

What assurances must an applicant 

submit? (§ 643.11(a)) 

Comment: Some commenters objected 

to the proposed change, reflected in 

proposed § 643.11(a), that would have 

required a project to provide an 

assurance that at least two-thirds of the 

subset of participants receiving support 

to complete a rigorous secondary school 

program of study must be low-income 

individuals who are potential firstgeneration college students. The 

commenters argued that the requirement 

was an unnecessary burden and would 

be costly for TS projects, which serve 

large numbers of participants, because it 

would require the project to monitor the 

eligibility and services provided to this 

subset of participants separately. 

Discussion: After reviewing the 

information provided by the 

commenters, the Secretary agrees that 

tracking the eligibility of participants in 

a rigorous secondary school program of 

study separately from other TS 

participants may be overly burdensome 

and costly to grantees so we have 

decided not to adopt the revisions we 

proposed for § 643.11(a). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65727 

Changes: In these final regulations, 

§ 643.11(a) will not include the 

proposed addition of the words ‘‘, and 

at least two-thirds of the participants 

selected to receive support for a rigorous 

secondary school program of study.’’ 

Instead, § 643.11(a) will remain 

substantively unchanged from current 

§ 643.10(a). 

Coordination Among Outreach 

Programs Serving Similar Populations 

(§ 643.11(b)) 

Comment: The Department received 

many comments regarding the language 

in proposed § 643.11(b), which would 

have required applicants to provide an 

assurance that individuals receiving 

project services will not receive the 

same services from another TRIO 

project, a GEAR UP project, or other 

programs serving similar populations. 

Several commenters argued that this 

provision goes beyond the statutory 

language and will restrict collaboration 

among programs. The commenters 

stated that collaboration is essential in 

the current economic climate. 

Several commenters also expressed 

concerns about how this provision 

would be implemented. The 

commenters stated that participants may 

receive the same service from two 

programs, but at different times of the 

year or on different days of the week. 

Some commenters expressed concerns 

that the provision could negatively 

affect individuals who already 

participate in more than one program 

and who may have to stop receiving 

certain services. Many commenters 

argued that it would be difficult, if not 

impossible, for projects to track and 

record all of the services that 

participants may receive from other 

programs. Some commenters noted that, 

as proposed, § 643.11(b) could prevent 

participants from receiving specialized 

services, and that often services that 

appear duplicative can actually serve to 

reinforce important concepts. One 

commenter suggested that this provision 

could create competition among 

programs. A few commenters also 

suggested that this provision could 

impede a project’s ability to comply 

with other sections of the HEA, such as 

exposing participants to institutions of 

higher education, cultural events, or 

academic programs. 

In light of these concerns, many 

commenters recommended that the 

Department delete § 643.11(b) in its 

entirety. Others recommended striking 

the words ‘‘a GEAR UP project under 34 

CFR part 694’’ and ‘‘or other programs 

serving similar populations.’’ Some 

commenters noted that projects should 

consult with other programs to ensure 

minimal overlap of services and 

suggested that the language in this 

section be revised to permit a 

participant to enroll in one or more 

programs as long as the programs 

document which program will provide 

which services. 

Discussion: We intended § 643.11(b) 

to help ensure that the limited funds 

available under the TRIO, GEAR UP, 

and other programs for disadvantaged 

students are used effectively and 

efficiently by minimizing the 

duplication of services. Because many 

of the same services are provided by TS, 

UB, GEAR UP, and other pre-college 

preparation programs, coordination of 

activities is essential to ensure that 

these programs reach as many students 

as possible. 

Grantees are encouraged to share 

ideas and coordinate services and 

activities with other Federal and nonFederal programs serving similar 

populations, as long as each project 

maintains fiscal practices that ensure 

that funds are not comingled and that 

services provided are appropriately 

documented. For example, a TS project 

and a UB project may jointly conduct a 

field trip to a college campus for 

participants from both projects while 

assigning costs to each project based on 

the number of its participants and staff 

who attended. 

To ensure effective coordination of 

services, we recommend that a project, 

when selecting target schools, determine 

if there is another TRIO, GEAR UP, or 

similar program at the school; and, if 

additional services are needed at the 

school, the project should develop 

collaboration plans to avoid duplication 

of services and competition among 

projects for participants. In selecting 

project participants, a project should 

also ask the student whether he or she 

is involved in similar college readiness 

programs so services can be 

coordinated. 

Based on the comments, the Secretary 

has determined that proposed 

§ 643.11(b) may be difficult to 

implement. Accordingly, we have 

revised the regulatory provision to 

address implementation problems like 

those raised by the commenters. 

Changes: We have amended 

§ 643.11(b) to require applicants to 

submit assurances that the project will 

collaborate with other Federal TRIO 

projects, GEAR UP projects, or programs 

serving similar populations that are 

serving the same target schools or target 

area to minimize the duplication of 

services and promote collaborations so 

that more students can be served. 

What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use? Need for the project. 

(§ 643.21(a)) 

Comment: We received a number of 

comments on the requirement that, for 

certain criteria in § 643.21(a), the 

applicant provide data for ‘‘the most 

recent year for which data is available.’’ 

These commenters suggested that the 

Department revise § 643.21 to require 

applicants to submit data for multiple 

years or to reinstate the current 

regulatory language requiring the 

applicant to provide the required data 

for the preceding three years to 

substantiate the basis of need. 

Discussion: To reduce the burden on 

TS applicants, these final regulations 

only require a grantee to provide data on 

high school persistence (see 

§ 643.21(a)(2)), graduation (see 

§ 643.21(a)(3)), and postsecondary 

enrollment (see § 643.21(a)(4)) for the 

most recent year for which data are 

available. Based on our experience, 

these data remain fairly consistent over 

a three year period; therefore, we 

believe the most recent year’s data 

should be sufficient for the peer 

reviewers to assess the extent of the 

need for the project. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that § 643.21(a)(1) should focus on 

students ‘‘enrolled in’’ or ‘‘participating 

in’’ the free or reduced price lunch 

program, as described in sections 9(b)(1) 

and 17(c)(4) of the Richard B. Russell 

National School Lunch Act, rather than 

students ‘‘eligible for’’ this program. This 

commenter also noted that applicants 

from areas such as the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 

Micronesia, and other outlying areas 

would not be able to respond to the 

criterion regarding eligibility for free or 

reduced price lunch. 

Discussion: We used the words 

‘‘eligible for’’ free or reduced priced 

lunch because reporting only on those 

‘‘enrolled or participating’’ in this 

program may undercount the number of 

low-income students in the target 

schools because many secondary school 

students choose not to participate in the 

free or reduced priced lunch program. 

In responding to the selection criterion 

in § 643.21(a)(1), applicants may choose 

to report either the number or 

percentage of low-income families 

residing in the target area (see paragraph 

(a)(1)(i) of this section) or the number or 

percentage of students attending the 

target schools who are eligible for free 

or reduced priced lunch (see paragraph 

(a)(1)(i) of this section). Therefore, 

applicants from areas that do not have 

the free and reduced priced lunch 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65728 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

program may satisfy this criterion by 

providing data on the number or 

percentage of low-income families 

residing in the target area. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the TS program is critical to increasing 

high school persistence and 

postsecondary enrollment rates in target 

schools but argued that the criteria for 

determining the need for the project in 

§ 643.21(a) worked against this goal. The 

commenter argued that these criteria 

penalize TS projects that are successful 

in helping the target schools increase 

their high school persistence and 

postsecondary enrollment rates when 

these projects apply for a new grant to 

continue to serve these schools. The 

commenter expressed concern that as 

the performance of these target schools 

improves, the need for the TS project, as 

defined in these criteria, diminishes. 

The commenter acknowledged the 

Department’s need to establish the 

postsecondary enrollment and high 

school persistence rates for the purposes 

of benchmarking objectives, but 

recommended that: (1) The Need criteria 

for low postsecondary enrollment and 

high school persistence rates be 

removed from the Need section; and (2) 

that the points assigned for low high 

school persistence and postsecondary 

enrollment rates be redistributed among 

the other Need criteria. 

Another commenter requested 

guidance on how applicants in States 

where attrition rates are not reported 

should respond to the high school 

persistence criterion in § 643.21(a)(2). 

Other commenters stated that data on 

graduation rates are not collected by 

their school districts and, therefore, are 

not available at the target schools, 

which would penalize applicants from 

those areas. 

Several commenters suggested that 

the high school persistence and high 

school graduation criteria disadvantage 

projects serving rural schools that do 

not have high dropout rates and do not 

have low high school graduation rates 

but have low postsecondary enrollment 

rates and little access or low 

participation in courses needed to 

complete rigorous secondary school 

programs of study. 

One commenter expressed concern 

about the criterion on low rates of 

students in the target schools who 

graduated high school with a regular 

secondary school diploma reflected in 

§ 643.21(a)(3). The commenter believes 

TS applicants would be discouraged 

from selecting target schools that had 

high rates of students who graduated 

with a regular secondary school 

diploma as these schools would not 

demonstrate high need. Another 

commenter noted that in the 

commenter’s State, the minimum 

graduation requirements almost 

guarantee a rigorous secondary school 

program of study for all graduates. This 

commenter expressed concern that TS 

applicants in areas that have these 

rigorous graduation requirements would 

be allowed fewer points for project need 

under § 643.21(a)(5) and that this result 

would be unfair to the students in those 

areas or States that have been proactive 

by setting high standards for high school 

graduation. Another commenter 

questioned the use of the term ‘‘regular’’ 

diploma noting that, beginning in 2014, 

a ‘‘regular’’ diploma in the commenter’s 

State would be the same as a diploma 

for completing the State’s rigorous 

curriculum. Those students not taking a 

rigorous secondary school program 

would receive a ‘‘modified’’ diploma. 

The commenter stated that by using the 

term ‘‘regular’’ in the regulations, all TS 

students in the State would have to 

meet the rigorous curriculum standards. 

Discussion: The proposed criteria for 

evaluating the need for a TS project 

reflect the changes made by sections 

403(a)(5) and 403(b)(1) of the HEOA to 

sections 402A(f)(3)(A) and 402B(a) of 

the HEA, respectively. The new criteria 

reflected in § 643.21(a) align with the 

purpose of the TS program and with the 

new statutory outcome criteria for the 

program. Therefore, we do not have the 

discretion to revise § 643.21(a) as 

requested by the commenter. 

The selection criteria require the 

applicant to provide in the application 

the data the peer reviewers need to 

assess the extent to which an applicant’s 

designated target area and target schools 

need the services of a TS project. 

Further, the data provided in the Need 

section of the application provide 

baseline data that the peer reviewers use 

to evaluate the appropriateness of the 

applicant’s proposed project objectives 

(see § 643.21(b)) and the quality of the 

applicant’s plan of operation for 

addressing the identified needs (see 

§ 643.21(c)). 

In responding to the selection criteria, 

an applicant is expected to present the 

required data and discuss how the data 

support the need for a TS project in the 

proposed target area and target schools. 

With regard to selection criteria for 

which the target schools do not collect 

the required information, the applicant, 

to the extent appropriate, may use other 

data sources (e.g., State or census data) 

and describe how these data relate to 

the criteria and demonstrate a need for 

a TS project in the target area and target 

schools. Although some applicants may 

have difficulty securing certain data, all 

applicants should be able to provide the 

data required for most of the criteria. 

The Department believes that it is the 

responsibility of applicants to judge the 

need for TS services among potential 

target schools and to present data that 

supports the need for a TS project in the 

proposed target schools. 

We do not believe the Need criteria 

will disadvantage an applicant 

providing services in rural communities 

because the applicant can justify the 

need for a TS project by presenting their 

data in the context of the geographic 

area in which it is providing services. 

Further, the applicant does not need to 

compare its data with data from other 

geographic areas (e.g., urban schools). 

The Secretary commends those States 

that have set high standards for high 

school graduation and the Need criteria 

in the TS regulations do not conflict 

with such standards. Under 

§ 643.21(a)(5), an applicant can 

demonstrate a need for a TS project by 

providing data on the extent to which 

the target secondary schools do not offer 

their students the courses or academic 

support to complete a rigorous 

secondary school program of study or 

have low participation by low-income 

or first-generation students in such 

courses. Therefore, an applicant can 

show the need for a TS project in 

schools that have high academic 

standards for high school graduation if 

TS eligible students are not taking 

rigorous courses. The Secretary also 

believes that the extent to which TS 

eligible students succeed in completing 

rigorous courses is an important 

indicator of need. Therefore, we have 

added the extent to which low-income 

or first generation students in target 

secondary schools succeed in rigorous 

secondary school program of study 

courses as an indicator of need. 

With regard to the commenter’s 

concern about the use of the term 

‘‘regular diploma,’’ we do not have the 

discretion to change the regulatory 

language at issue because it is required 

by sections 402A(f)(3)(A)(iii) and 

(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the HEA, which mandate 

that the TS program include the 

following two measures: (1) The extent 

to which participants graduate from 

secondary school with a regular 

secondary school diploma in the 

standard number of years; and (2) the 

extent to which participants complete a 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study. 

Changes: The Secretary has amended 

proposed § 643.21(a)(5) by adding the 

words ‘‘or low success’’ after the word 

‘‘participation.’’ 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the Need criteria do not 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65729 

adequately consider students’ 

achievement and performance in their 

target schools. The commenter stated 

that proposed § 643.21(a) does not 

reflect the purpose of the TS program, 

which he believes is to promote equal 

educational access and to eliminate 

barriers to higher education for lowincome students. The commenter 

suggested that persistence and 

graduation rates are not an accurate 

reflection of student performance and 

achievement within schools in the 

lowest income communities. The 

commenter suggested that in addition to 

the points awarded for low high school 

persistence, graduation, and college 

completion, points also should be given 

for low student achievement and low 

standardized test scores in the target 

schools or areas. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that low academic 

achievement and low standardized test 

scores of students in the target schools 

are other indicators of need for a TS 

project. Therefore, we have revised the 

criteria in § 643.21(a)(6) to make these 

changes. We have also redistributed the 

points assigned to the Need criteria to 

better reflect the relative importance of 

each of the criteria. 

Changes: We have revised the criteria 

in § 643.21(a)(6) to include low 

academic achievement and low 

standardized test scores of students 

enrolled in the target schools as 

examples of other indicators of need for 

a TS project. We have also reduced the 

number of points assigned to the criteria 

in § 643.21(a)(1)—high number or 

percentage of low-income families 

residing in the target area or low-income 

students attending the target schools— 

from six points to four points. Finally, 

we have increased the number of points 

assigned to the criteria in § 643.21(a)(6) 

from four points to six points. 

What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use? Objectives. (§ 643.21(b)) 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that proposed § 643.21(b)(4) 

and (b)(5), which would require 

grantees to track participants through 

postsecondary completion is not within 

the scope or purpose or the TS program. 

These commenters asserted that the 

HEA only requires projects to encourage 

and prepare participants for 

‘‘enrollment’’ into postsecondary 

programs. Some commenters also 

suggested that the tracking requirement 

for this criterion is unrealistic based on 

the high number of participants that are 

served by a TS project. 

Several commenters requested 

clarification regarding whether grantees 

will need to track all graduates through 

postsecondary completion or just those 

who participated in a rigorous 

secondary school program of study. 

Several commenters suggested that 

grantees only be required to include in 

the random selection process for 

tracking postsecondary completion 

seniors that graduate from high school 

during the project year. Several 

commenters requested that a more 

feasible requirement would be to 

request postsecondary acceptance rates 

or ‘‘college going rates’’ because they 

believe that the criterion regarding 

tracking postsecondary enrollment and 

completion discriminates against high 

schools that do not track these outcomes 

and that there is no reasonable method 

to collect this data accurately. 

Other commenters suggested that 

projects should not be held responsible 

for students’ postsecondary degree 

attainment, which requires tracking for 

four to six years after each graduating 

class and will require projects to follow 

the academic progress of these students 

once they enter college even though the 

TS program is not providing any 

services during this time. These 

commenters expressed concern that this 

criterion does not consider the many 

factors that determine whether or not 

students will be successful in 

postsecondary education. 

One commenter requested that we 

consider revising the regulations to 

avoid imposing mandatory, inefficient, 

and unreasonable tracking and sampling 

methods. Specifically, the commenter 

recommended that, because sampling 

and other tracking methods will 

increase the burden on programs, we 

should eliminate the sampling 

requirement altogether and instead limit 

tracking of postsecondary completion to 

only current year participants who 

complete secondary school during the 

current project year. 

Discussion: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(vi) 

of the HEA, as amended by section 

403(a)(5) of the HEOA, requires the 

Department to use postsecondary 

education completion, if practicable, in 

evaluating the quality and effectiveness 

of a TS project. Because TS projects 

serve relatively large numbers of 

participants, we recognize that it may be 

difficult for the project to track all 

participants through completion of 

postsecondary education. Therefore, a 

TS project may track a randomly 

selected sample of its participants. The 

purpose of § 643.22(d)(6) is to reduce, 

not increase, the burden on grantees. A 

grantee, however, is not required to use 

a sample but may choose to track all 

participants that complete secondary 

schools and enroll in postsecondary 

education. 

The Secretary plans, subject to 

meeting the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, to 

establish standard objectives related to 

postsecondary completion and provide 

the sampling parameters in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications 

and the application package for the TS 

program. 

Changes: None. 

What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use? Plan of Operation: The 

plan to identify and select eligible 

project participants. (§ 643.21(c)(2)) 

Comment: Some commenters 

requested that § 643.21(c)(2), regarding 

the applicant’s plan for identifying and 

selecting eligible participants, be 

revised to track current § 643.21(c)(2), 

which requires applicants to have a plan 

to identify and select eligible 

participants and ensure their 

participation without regard to race, 

color, national origin, gender, or 

disability. 

Discussion: In developing proposed 

§ 643.21(c)(2), the Department elected 

not to retain the selection criterion 

requiring applicants to have a plan to 

ensure participants’ participation 

without regard to race, color, national 

origin, gender or disability because we 

believed that this language was 

duplicative of other regulations. Every 

applicant for Federal financial 

assistance must submit an assurance to 

the Department that it will comply with 

the Federal civil rights laws (see 34 CFR 

100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 

Further, grantees under the TRIO 

programs and other programs funded by 

the Department are required to comply 

with Federal laws that prohibit 

discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, national origin, sex, handicap, or 

age (see 34 CFR 75.500, § 643.6(a)(2)). 

Changes: None. 

What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use? Plan of Operation: The 

plan to identify and select eligible 

project participants, and the plan 

regarding a rigorous secondary school 

program of study. (§ 643.21(c)(2) and 

(4)) and Number of Participants 

(§ 643.32(b)) 

Comment: Some commenters 

applauded the Secretary for proposing 

to include in the selection criteria the 

requirement that applicants have a plan 

to identify and select eligible 

participants and to provide TS services 

for individuals who need them to 

complete a rigorous secondary school 

program of study. The commenters 

requested guidance from the 

Department on its expectations 

regarding the number or percentage of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65730 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

participants that would have to be 

served in a rigorous program under 

these selection criteria. 

Some commenters expressed concern 

that the selection criteria requiring 

grantees to assist students to complete a 

rigorous curriculum (§ 643.21(c)(4)) 

would place grantees serving rural areas 

at a serious disadvantage in comparison 

to those serving urban areas. The 

commenters argued that in order to 

serve the required number of 

participants, a TS project serving a rural 

area typically serves more target schools 

and a larger geographic area, which 

increases project costs, particularly staff 

travel costs. Further, the commenters 

noted that many small rural schools do 

not offer all the courses a student would 

need to complete a rigorous secondary 

school program of study. 

Many commenters expressed concern 

that requiring grantees to assist students 

to complete a rigorous curriculum 

would add costs for a grantee. These 

commenters stated that providing these 

services would require grantees to hire 

staff with special skills needed to 

recruit, monitor, and track students in a 

rigorous curriculum program. The 

commenters suggested that, at the 

current funding level for this program, 

for a grantee to provide these types of 

rigorous curriculum services to at least 

10 percent of the participants, it would 

need to reduce the number of 

participants from 600 (the currently 

required minimum) to 450. Other 

commenters noted that the increased 

costs of assisting students taking a 

rigorous curriculum under § 643.21(c)(4) 

and the new requirement to follow 

participants through postsecondary 

education in § 643.21(c)(5) would force 

current TS projects to serve fewer 

students than currently being served or 

reduce services. 

Some commenters suggested that the 

selection criteria in § 643.21(c)(2) and 

(c)(4) will require projects to implement 

a two-tiered program of service 

delivery—the first tier would support 

the participants completing a rigorous 

curriculum and the second tier would 

provide college preparatory education 

for those participants not taking a 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study. The commenters argued that this 

two-tiered approach would force current 

projects to change their participant 

recruitment and selection strategies, 

hire additional staff, and reduce the 

number of students currently being 

served. These commenters also 

contended that, given the current budget 

crisis in local school districts, some 

projects would not be able to assist 

participants in completing a rigorous 

secondary school of study under 

§ 643.21(c)(4) due to the unavailability 

of the curriculum and other resources. 

Other commenters noted that the 

proposed changes requiring projects to 

provide intensive services appear to be 

very similar to the requirements of the 

Upward Bound program. Several 

commenters requested guidance 

regarding the delivery of services for 

students in a rigorous secondary school 

program of study who have different 

educational and developmental needs 

compared to traditional TS students. 

Discussion: In amending the HEA, 

Congress substantially changed the 

purpose and goals of the TS program. By 

including in section 402A(f)(3)(A) of the 

HEA several new outcome criteria for 

evaluating the quality and effectiveness 

of TS projects, Congress effectively 

required all TS projects to expand the 

types of services provided. Prior to 

enactment of the HEOA, the statute did 

not prescribe any specific performance 

measures for TS projects; the current 

measures were established through 

regulations (see current § 643.22). The 

new statutory outcome criteria for 

assessing the success of a TS project 

include the following two new 

measures, which are not included in the 

current regulations: (1) The completion 

by participants of a rigorous secondary 

school program of study; and (2) to the 

extent practicable, completion by 

participants of postsecondary education. 

In addition, Congress amended section 

402B of the HEA to require TS grantees 

to provide certain services; previously 

the HEA included only a list of 

‘‘permissible’’ services that a grantee 

could choose to provide to participants. 

These final TS regulations appropriately 

reflect these statutory changes. 

The Department acknowledges that 

many rural schools and low achieving 

high schools may not offer all of the 

courses needed to complete a rigorous 

secondary school program of study and 

recognizes that there will probably be 

some participants that will need more 

costly and intensive services, such as 

tutoring or tuition assistance to 

complete the requirements of a rigorous 

secondary school program of study. 

In recognition of the additional costs 

that grantees likely will incur in 

providing the new services required by 

the HEOA, including the increased costs 

of assisting students taking a rigorous 

curriculum and following participants 

through postsecondary education, the 

Secretary revised § 643.32(b) by 

removing the requirement that grantees 

serve a specified minimum number of 

participants. Section 643.32(b) specifies 

that the Department will identify the 

minimum and maximum grant award 

amounts and the minimum number of 

participants a TS project must serve 

each year of the grant cycle in the 

Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for a competition. This 

practice will give the Department the 

flexibility to establish the minimum 

number of participants to be served 

based on the available resources and 

other priorities for each competition and 

to adjust these numbers for subsequent 

competitions based on our experience, 

changing priorities, and cost analyses. 

The Department acknowledges that 

not all TS eligible students may be 

ready for a rigorous secondary school 

program of study. Therefore, the 

Secretary has revised proposed 

§ 643.21(c)(4), which would have 

specified that we evaluate a TS 

applicant on a plan to provide services 

sufficient to enable TS participants to 

succeed in a rigorous program of study. 

Instead, the final regulations specify 

that we will evaluate a TS applicant on 

a plan to work in a coordinated, 

collaborative, and cost-effective manner 

as part of an overarching college access 

strategy with the target schools or 

school system and other programs for 

disadvantaged students to provide 

participants with access to and 

assistance in completing a rigorous 

secondary school program of study. We 

expect TS grantees to work with their 

target schools, students, and parents to 

explain the eligibility requirements for 

participation, and the services and 

activities that will be provided by the 

TS project and those services that will 

be provided through the target school or 

by other programs. 

Further, because all TS participants 

will be encouraged to complete a 

rigorous curriculum, the Secretary has 

also revised proposed § 643.21(c)(2) by 

removing the requirement that an 

applicant present a plan for selecting 

individuals who would receive support 

to complete a rigorous secondary school 

program of study. 

Although the new statutory outcome 

criteria for the TS program are 

somewhat similar to those for the UB 

program and will require new project 

goals and objectives for the TS program, 

the Department does not believe that 

Congress intended for the TS program to 

replicate or duplicate UB. For example, 

section 402C(c) of the HEA requires UB 

projects to provide instruction in 

mathematics through precalculus, 

laboratory science, foreign language, 

composition, and literature while TS 

projects need only provide 

‘‘connections’’ to high quality academic 

tutoring services (section 402B(b)(1) of 

the HEA). The regulations properly 

reflect the differences between the 

programs. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65731 

Regarding the comment about 

students in a rigorous secondary school 

program of study who have different 

educational and developmental needs 

compared to traditional TS students, we 

recognize that students in a rigorous 

secondary school of study may have 

different educational and 

developmental needs than traditional 

TS students, most of whom have needed 

assistance in completing admission and 

financial aid applications, not academic 

support. Applicants for TS grants must 

design and implement new service 

delivery models that are consistent with 

the new statutory requirements and that 

balance intensity of services with 

strategic coordination with schools and 

other programs to carry out projects that 

are cost efficient and that best meet 

students’ needs, including the needs of 

students in rigorous secondary school 

program of study. 

Changes: We have amended proposed 

§ 643.21(c)(2) to remove the selection 

criterion requiring an applicant to 

provide a plan for identifying and 

selecting participants for a rigorous 

secondary school program of study. 

Thus, final § 643.21(c)(2) requires only 

that an applicant provides a plan for 

identifying and selecting participants. 

We also have removed the proposed 

criterion in § 643.21(c)(4) and replaced 

it with a criterion that requires an 

applicant to present a plan to work in 

a coordinated, collaborative, and costeffective manner as part of an 

overarching college access strategy with 

the target schools or school system and 

other programs for disadvantaged 

students to provide participants with 

access to and assistance in completing 

a rigorous secondary school program of 

study. 

In § 643.21(c)(5) we have removed 

from the proposed criterion the words 

‘‘coordination with other programs for 

disadvantaged youth’’ to eliminate 

duplication of the provision we are 

adding to § 643.21(c)(4). 

Finally, we have revised § 643.32(b) to 

specify that for each year of the project 

period, a grantee must serve at least the 

number of participants that the 

Secretary identifies in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications for 

a competition, and to state that through 

this notice, the Secretary provides the 

minimum and maximum grant award 

amounts for the competition. 

What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use? Plan of Operation: The 

plan to follow former participants as 

they enter, continue in, and complete 

postsecondary education. 

(§ 643.21(c)(6)) 

Comment: Some commenters objected 

to the proposed criteria in § 643.21(c)(6) 

that would require TS applicants to 

have a plan to follow former 

participants as they progress in 

postsecondary education. These 

commenters suggested that it is not 

reasonable, practicable, or economically 

feasible for the Department to judge the 

success and effectiveness of a TS project 

on the basis of the degree to which 

participants enter, continue in, and 

complete postsecondary programs when 

the project cannot provide retention 

services during the participants’ college 

years. 

Discussion: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(v) 

and (f)(3)(A)(vi) of the HEA includes the 

enrollment in and completion of 

postsecondary education as an outcome 

criterion for the TS Program. To 

implement these statutory requirements, 

§ 643.21(c)(6) requires applicants to 

have a plan to achieve goals in these 

areas. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters 

requested that we define the phrase 

‘‘complete postsecondary education,’’ as 

it is used in § 643.21(c)(6). In particular, 

these commenters asked if completion 

of vocational and technical degree 

programs and/or other community 

college degrees would constitute 

completion of postsecondary education 

under this selection criterion. The 

commenters suggested that if the 

standard is the completion of a four-year 

degree, a project could not count TS 

participants enrolling in and completing 

community and junior colleges and 

career technology programs. 

Discussion: For purposes of § 643.21, 

the Secretary considers programs of 

postsecondary education to include 

vocational and technical degree 

programs, associate degree programs, as 

well as bachelor degree programs. 

Because TS participants may enroll in 

all types of postsecondary programs, the 

project should present a plan to follow 

a sample of former participants through 

completion of their programs of 

postsecondary education. 

Changes: None. 

What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use? Applicant and 

Community Support: Resources secured 

through written commitments. 

(§ 643.21(d)(2)) 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested clarification of the selection 

criteria requiring that TS applicants get 

commitments from the community. 

Some commenters asked if an applicant 

that is an institution of higher education 

must get commitments from institutions 

other than the host institution. Other 

commenters expressed concern that 

secondary schools would not be 

interested in becoming educational 

partners with university-based projects 

because secondary schools are now 

eligible to apply for TS grants. The 

commenters stated that secondary 

school applicants would have an unfair 

advantage in a TS competition, because 

they could operate a TS project without 

getting commitments from colleges and 

universities while an applicant that is 

an institution of higher education or 

community-based organization would 

need commitments from the secondary 

schools to effectively serve the 

secondary school students participating 

in the TS project. The commenters 

recommended that secondary schools be 

held to the same selection criteria as 

higher education institutions and other 

eligible entities. 

Discussion: The intent of 

§ 643.21(d)(2) is to ensure a fair and 

equitable competition by requiring that 

all applicants secure commitments from 

various entities within the community. 

The Secretary believes that schools and 

community organizations should secure 

commitments from institutions of higher 

education so that these organizations 

have the full scope of partners necessary 

to implement a successful TS program. 

The Secretary does not agree with the 

contention that possible applicants in 

the secondary school systems would not 

be interested in partnering with higher 

education institutions, community 

organizations, or others. Nonetheless, 

based on the comments received, the 

Secretary believes that the wording of 

proposed § 643.21(d)(2) may be unclear. 

For this reason, we have made clarifying 

changes to this provision. 

Changes: We have revised proposed 

§ 643.21(d)(2) to state that: (i) An 

applicant that is an institution of higher 

education must include in its 

application commitments from the 

target schools and community 

organizations; (ii) an applicant that is a 

secondary school must include in its 

application commitments from 

institutions of higher education, 

community organizations, and as 

appropriate, other secondary schools 

and the school district; and (iii) an 

applicant that is a community 

organization must include in its 

application commitments from the 

target schools and institutions of higher 

education. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65732 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

How does the Secretary evaluate prior 

experience? (§ 643.22) 

Comment: Some commenters asked 

that we revise § 643.22 to clarify the 

meaning of the term ‘‘prior participants’’ 

for purposes of the PE evaluation in 

§ 643.22(d)(3) through (d)(5). These 

commenters requested that TS projects 

not be required to track prior 

participants through postsecondary 

completion. The commenters stated that 

a requirement to track prior participants 

after they participate in the program is 

an undue burden on a TS project given 

the number of students served and the 

amount of funding per participant. The 

commenters argued that grantees should 

not be required to track non-active 

participants who graduated from the 

program years earlier. 

Several commenters also asked that 

§ 643.22(d)(5) be changed to permit 

participants’ postsecondary enrollment 

to be by the ‘‘fall or spring’’ term 

immediately following the school year, 

instead of by the ‘‘fall’’ term immediately 

following the school year because some 

participants may need to delay 

enrollment in postsecondary education. 

Discussion: As noted earlier in this 

preamble, with the enactment of the 

HEOA, the HEA includes new outcome 

criteria for the TS program, including: 

Graduation from secondary school with 

a regular secondary school diploma in 

the standard number of years; the 

completion of a rigorous secondary 

school program of study; and 

postsecondary enrollment. The 

Department is required to use these 

criteria to assess the success of a TS 

project. However, the Department 

acknowledges that TS projects serve 

large numbers of participants each year 

and may not have the resources needed 

to track prior participants through high 

school and into postsecondary 

education. Therefore, the Department is 

revising § 643.22(d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5) 

by removing the requirement to track 

prior participants and clarifying, in 

§ 643.22(d)(3) and (d)(4), that grantees 

must track participants served during 

the project year. 

Further, we have decided to revise the 

outcome criterion in § 643.22(d)(5) to 

focus on participants’ enrollment in 

programs of postsecondary education 

within the time period specified in the 

approved objective rather than stating in 

the regulation the time frame for 

measurement. The Secretary will, 

subject to meeting the requirements of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

include in the application package for 

the TS programs a standard objective 

related to postsecondary enrollment that 

includes the time frame for measuring 

postsecondary enrollment. This will 

give the Secretary the flexibility to 

change the period of measurement for 

each grant competition based on 

changing situations. 

We have also revised the outcome 

criterion in § 643.22(d)(6) to clarify that 

a grantee must track the postsecondary 

completion for only those participants 

who enrolled in a program of 

postsecondary education. The option to 

use a randomly selected sample of 

participants to track this postsecondary 

completion should reduce the reporting 

burden on grantees. 

For consistency with the regulatory 

language used in § 643.22(d)(2), (d)(3) 

and (d)(6), we have deleted the words 

‘‘the percentage of’’ in § 643.22(d)(4) and 

(d)(5). In addition, we have revised 

§ 643.22(d)(4) by removing the words 

‘‘who enrolled in and’’ before the words 

‘‘completed a rigorous secondary school 

program of study’’ to be consistent with 

the changes we have made to 

§§ 643.3(b), 643.11(a), 643.21(c)(2) and 

(c)(4) and 643.32(b)(5), which now 

include additional participant eligibility 

and recordkeeping requirements for 

students in a rigorous program of study. 

Changes: We have changed proposed 

§ 643.22(d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5) by 

removing the reference to prior 

participants in each of these three 

provisions. In § 643.22(d)(3) and (d)(4), 

we have clarified that current 

participants are ‘‘participants served 

during the project year.’’ In addition, in 

§ 643.22(d)(4) and (d)(5), we have 

removed the words ‘‘the percentage of’’ 

and in § 643.22(d)(4) we have also 

removed the words ‘‘enrolled in and.’’ 

Further, we have changed proposed 

§ 643.22(d)(5) by replacing the words 

‘‘by the fall term immediately following 

the school year’’ with the words ‘‘within 

the time period specified in the 

approved objective’’ and have revised 

§ 643.22(d)(6) by replacing the words 

‘‘regarding the completion of’’ with the 

words ‘‘project participants who 

enrolled in and completed.’’ 

Comment: Some commenters stated 

that the 1.5 PE points in § 643.22(d)(6) 

for postsecondary completion should be 

reduced because there are many 

variables outside the control of the TS 

project that could affect this outcome. 

The commenters recommended that 

only one-half of one point (0.5 point) be 

assigned to this criterion because the 

participants’ postsecondary completion 

may not be based on direct services the 

project provides to participants. 

Discussion: The Secretary does not 

agree with the commenters’ suggestion 

to reduce the points allocated to the 

postsecondary-completion criterion. 

The Secretary believes that one-half of 

one point is a negligible amount, which 

goes against the spirit of the HEA. The 

1.5 points for this criterion in 

§ 643.22(d)(6) represents only 10 

percent of the total PE points a project 

could earn. 

Changes: None. 

What are allowable costs? (§ 643.30) 

Comment: A number of commenters 

suggested including several additional 

costs to the list of allowable costs for the 

TS program in § 643.30. Some 

commenters recommended that we add 

as an allowable cost, participant meals 

while on field trips, in tutoring sessions, 

or at other events because many 

participants cannot afford to pay for 

meals while on field trips or at other 

project sponsored events. Some 

commenters recommended that we add 

transportation and meals for parents to 

attend certain workshops and college 

visits. 

Other commenters suggested that we 

add an allowable cost provision for 

cultural events, including associated 

transportation, meals, and admission 

fees, because cultural events are 

permitted under § 643.4(b)(4) and TS 

participants would benefit from 

exposure to these events. Commenters 

also recommended that costs associated 

with hiring instructional staff, evening 

and weekend staff, or retraining or 

renegotiating contracts with current staff 

to provide tutoring for rigorous 

coursework, financial literacy 

programming, or college entrance exam 

preparation be allowable. 

Commenters also suggested that 

testing fees, including general 

educational development (GED) exam 

fees, should be allowable, as these costs 

are increasing and TS projects are not 

always able to attain fee waivers. 

Some commenters requested 

clarification regarding the Department’s 

addition of the word ‘‘project’’ before the 

word ‘‘staff’’ in § 643.30(a). These 

commenters noted that the provision 

now appears to prohibit projects from 

paying meals and lodging for 

chaperones and part-time summer staff. 

Discussion: Section 643.30(a) permits 

a project to pay transportation, meals, 

and, if necessary, lodging, for 

participants and staff in a number of 

situations, including for field trips to 

observe and meet with persons 

employed in various career fields. 

However, the TS program is a low cost 

per participant program and we do not 

believe adding meals as an allowable 

cost for all field trips, tutoring sessions, 

or other events, or adding transportation 

and meals for parents to attend certain 

workshops and college visits would be 

the best use of limited resources. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65733 

Section 643.30(c) establishes the 

conditions upon which a TS project 

may pay for college applications or 

entrance examinations. We have revised 

§ 643.30(c) to include fees that are 

required for alternative education 

examinations, including the GED. 

Further, as one of the required services, 

a TS project must assist participants in 

preparing for college entrance 

examinations; however, because the TS 

program is a low cost per participant 

program, we do not believe it is 

reasonable for a TS project to pay a third 

party for college entrance exam 

preparation for individual participants. 

Regarding an allowable cost provision 

for cultural events, the Department 

believes that field trips and campus 

visits, which are allowable costs, may 

have cultural benefits for participants. 

While we encourage grantees to 

incorporate cultural events into these 

types of trips, we do not agree that 

cultural events should be added to the 

regulations as a separate allowable cost 

category. While the Department 

understands the value of cultural 

events, we believe that adding them as 

an allowable cost would divert scarce 

resources away from direct collegeaccess services. Connections to tutoring 

and financial and economic literacy 

services are required services of the TS 

program; therefore, costs associated 

with providing these services would be 

allowable, including hiring or retraining 

staff members to provide these services. 

Nonetheless, the Department 

encourages grantees to seek low cost 

alternatives to hiring instructional staff, 

such as seeking connections to existing 

tutoring or financial literacy services for 

TS participants. Further, TS grantees 

should coordinate with the target 

schools and other organizations in the 

community to ensure that participants 

have access to the full range of services 

required for success. 

Finally, the term project staff, as used 

in § 643.30(a), includes part-time staff, 

including summer staff, and volunteers 

responsible for chaperoning TS 

participants on field trips and campus 

visits; therefore project funds may be 

used to pay for these individuals’ meals 

and lodging. 

Changes: We have revised § 643.30(c) 

to include examination fees for 

alternative education programs if a 

waiver of the fee is unavailable and the 

fee is paid by the grantee to a third party 

on behalf of a participant. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

transportation costs for participants in a 

rigorous curriculum in rural areas 

would be costly and may use up limited 

TS funds. The commenter argued that 

level funding has damaged a TS 

project’s ability to provide additional 

transportation costs, particularly in light 

of the costs of the fringe benefits 

required to be provided to TS staff as 

mandated by most State institutions. 

Other commenters argued that projects 

do not have sufficient funding to 

provide tuition for participants. Some 

commenters also noted that payment of 

tuition for a few participants may be 

perceived as discriminatory by 

participants pursuing regular secondary 

school diplomas. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern that the costs 

associated with transportation of 

participants in rural areas and payment 

of tuition would use up limited TS 

funding. We also appreciate 

commenters’ concern that payment of 

tuition for a few participants may be 

perceived as discriminatory. On the 

other hand, during the negotiated 

rulemaking sessions, some non-Federal 

negotiators argued that allowing 

grantees to use grant funds for this 

purpose was necessary to meet the goals 

of the statute. As discussed earlier in 

this preamble, one of the new statutory 

outcome criteria for the TS program 

requires that TS projects report data on 

the completion by participants of a 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study that would make them eligible for 

grants under the Academic 

Competitiveness Grants (ACG) Program. 

Some non-Federal negotiators 

recommended that TS grantees be 

authorized to pay transportation and 

tuition costs for participants who are 

trying to complete a rigorous program, 

when courses required for the program 

are not offered at the secondary school 

the participant attends or at another 

local school. The Department decided to 

allow grantees to use program funds for 

this purpose. The regulations do not 

require TS grantees to provide tuition or 

transportation costs for participants but 

authorizes this expense as an allowable 

cost to assist students in completing a 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters 

suggested allowing TS program funds to 

be used to pay for ‘‘service agreements’’ 

for computer systems and related 

technology because many technology 

systems may require service agreements 

to cover repairs and software packages. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

suggestion made by the commenters. 

Changes: We have amended 

§ 643.30(f) and (g) to include service 

agreements as an allowable cost. 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended that we revise 

§ 643.30(h)(3) to allow TS funds to be 

used to pay for tuition costs for 

accredited courses offered online 

because the availability of online 

courses has increased and allowing TS 

funds to be used for these courses could 

increase student access to rigorous 

curriculum study. One commenter 

recommended revising § 643.30(h)(3) to 

allow TS funds to be used to pay for 

coursework that may be offered by a 

college at sites other than the college 

campus, such as online or at a 

secondary school campus. Other 

commenters suggested allowing costs 

for Advanced Placement (AP) and the 

Idaho Digital Learning Academy 

coursework as these options may be 

available at participants’ high schools 

and may cost less than postsecondary 

tuition. 

Some commenters noted that in the 

commenters’ State, students must earn a 

grade of ‘‘C’’ or better in a series of 

courses to complete a rigorous 

secondary school program of study. Due 

to budget constraints, however, many 

high schools will not allow students to 

repeat a course in which the student 

earned a ‘‘D,’’ since the student would 

still receive credit for the course. 

Despite receiving credit in this case, the 

student would not be eligible to 

complete a rigorous secondary school 

program of study, unless the student 

was able to repeat the course and earn 

a grade of ‘‘C’’ or better. The commenter 

recommended that projects be allowed 

to provide tuition assistance for 

participants under this circumstance. 

One commenter noted that one reason 

participants may not have access to 

rigorous coursework is that available 

slots in the courses are full due to 

overcrowding in the district. This 

commenter noted that under the current 

regulations, TS projects may only use 

TS funds to pay tuition for participants 

if ‘‘the course or a similar course is not 

offered at the secondary school that the 

participant attends or at another school 

within the participant’s school district,’’ 

which would not allow projects to assist 

participants who are not able to take a 

course due to overcrowding. The 

commenter recommended that the 

regulations permit projects to provide 

tuition assistance for these participants 

to take the needed courses elsewhere. 

One commenter requested 

clarification as to whether text books 

and lab fees are allowable costs. 

Another commenter requested 

clarification on whether all eight criteria 

listed in the regulations must be met for 

a project to provide tuition assistance. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

proposal to revise § 643.30(h)(3) to 

allow TS grantees to pay for courses 

taken through an accredited institution 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65734 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

of higher education, including online 

courses and courses provided at a site 

other than the institution’s campus, 

such as at a secondary school campus, 

provided the course meets all the 

conditions in § 643.30(h). Section 

643.30(h)(3) does not authorize TS 

grantees to pay for courses provided by 

accredited institutions at the secondary 

school’s campus if the course is 

generally available to students at the 

target schools through an arrangement 

between the school district and the 

institution of higher education (e.g., 

dual enrollment courses). 

We do not agree that TS grant funds 

should be used to pay for Advanced 

Placement (AP) and other courses 

available through the participant’s high 

school, for students to repeat courses to 

receive a higher grade, or for 

participants to enroll elsewhere in cases 

of overcrowded courses that are already 

offered at their schools or in their school 

districts. The purpose of § 643.30(h) is 

to allow grantees to pay the costs of 

courses that are part of a rigorous 

secondary school program of study only 

in exceptional situations in which a 

participant does not have access to a 

course or courses through his or her 

high school. 

Furthermore, while we recognize that 

districts may face overcrowding for 

enrollment in some secondary school 

courses, we believe that applicants 

should partner closely with target 

schools and the school districts during 

pre-grant planning efforts to mitigate 

enrollment hurdles, to the extent 

practicable. We do not believe that 

limited project funds should be used to 

pay tuition for courses that are already 

offered in a participant’s school or 

district. As part of the collaboration 

with the target schools, institutions of 

higher education and other community 

organizations, TS participants should be 

provided the same opportunities and 

access to rigorous courses as other 

students in the target schools. 

Finally, project funds may be used to 

cover tuition and required textbooks 

and lab fees only if all eight criteria 

listed in § 643.30(h) have been met. 

Changes: We have amended proposed 

§ 643.30(h)(3) to authorize the use of TS 

funds to pay for courses taken through 

an accredited institution of higher 

education. 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended allowing TS projects to 

pay stipends to students in a rigorous 

secondary school program of study to 

help defray transportation costs when a 

student has to stay after school or obtain 

additional tutoring. The commenters 

requested that participant stipends be 

added to the list of allowable costs so 

that TS will offer benefits comparable to 

those in other programs such as GEAR 

UP and Upward Bound. 

Discussion: The cost for 

transportation for participants to receive 

instruction, tutoring, or other services 

provided by the project that is part of a 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study is an allowable cost in 

§ 643.30(a)(4). We do not agree with the 

proposal to authorize the use of TS 

funds to pay stipends to participants. 

Stipends are only permitted in the TRIO 

programs when they are specifically 

authorized by statute. The HEA does not 

authorize stipends in the TS program. 

Changes: None. 

What other requirements must a 

grantee meet? 

Number of Participants 

Comment: We received three 

comments on the proposal to remove 

the minimum number of participants 

from the regulations. One commenter 

noted that the provision would favor 

newer, smaller projects while another 

commenter expressed concern about the 

possible fluctuation in participant 

numbers from one grant cycle to the 

next which might jeopardize 

relationships with the target schools if 

the project had to reduce the number of 

student services. Another commenter 

hoped that the Department would 

consider the higher costs of providing 

services to participants taking a rigorous 

program of study and the varying cost 

of living indexes throughout the country 

in determining the minimum number of 

participants for a competition. 

Discussion: In recognition of the 

additional costs that grantees likely will 

incur in providing the new services 

required or permitted by the HEOA, 

including the increased costs of 

assisting students taking a rigorous 

curriculum and following participants 

through postsecondary education, the 

Secretary is not including in § 643.32(b) 

the requirement that grantees serve a 

specified minimum number of 

participants. Instead, as discussed 

elsewhere in this preamble, we believe 

it is appropriate for the Secretary to 

identify the minimum and maximum 

grant award amounts and the minimum 

number of participants a TS project 

must serve each year of the grant cycle 

in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for a competition. This 

practice will give the Department the 

flexibility to establish the minimum 

number of participants to be served 

based on the available resources and 

priorities for each competition and to 

adjust these numbers for subsequent 

competitions based on our experience, 

changing priorities, and cost analyses. 

Changes: We have revised § 643.32(b) 

to clarify that a grantee must serve at 

least the number of participants that the 

Secretary identifies in the application 

notice for the competition. 

List of Courses Taken by Participants 

(proposed § 643.32(b)(5)) 

Comment: Commenters expressed 

concerns about proposed § 643.32(b)(5), 

which would have required TS grantees 

to maintain a list of courses taken by 

participants that receive support to 

complete a rigorous secondary school 

program of study. The commenters 

argued that this requirement would 

impose an additional burden on 

grantees and increase the costs of staff 

time for recordkeeping and the 

utilization of office resources. 

Discussion: The Secretary agrees with 

the commenters that the requirement for 

a list of courses would impose a 

significant recordkeeping burden that 

would outweigh the benefits of the 

practice and, therefore, has deleted 

proposed § 643.32(b)(5). 

Changes: The Secretary is not 

including proposed § 643.32(b)(5) in 

these final regulations. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Based on comments we 

received regarding proposed § 643.11(b), 

we have revised the required assurance 

in § 643.11(b). Because of the change to 

§ 643.11(b), we believe it is necessary to 

add a new § 643.32(c)(5) to require that 

for each TS participant, the grantee, to 

the extent practicable, must maintain a 

record of any services the participant 

receives during the project year under 

other TRIO or federally funded 

programs that serve populations similar 

to those served under the TS program. 

This provision has been added to help 

ensure that the limited funds available 

under TRIO, GEAR UP, and other 

programs for disadvantaged students are 

used effectively and efficiently by 

minimizing the duplication of services 

through coordination of activities. 

Change: A new § 643.32(c)(5) has 

been added, requiring grantees to 

maintain a record of any services TS 

participants receive during the project 

year from another TRIO program or 

federally funded program that serves 

populations similar to those served 

under the TS program. 

Project Director (proposed § 643.32(c)) 

Comment: Many commenters 

suggested that proposed § 643.32(c), 

which restricts a grant program director 

from administering more than three 

programs, was confusing. One 

commenter also suggested that the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65735 

Department strike the words ‘‘one or 

two,’’ so that project directors may 

administer more than three programs in 

order to foster collaboration and cost 

savings. 

Discussion: The Secretary agrees that 

proposed § 643.32(c)(3) may have been 

confusing and has clarified the 

regulation. The Secretary, however, 

does not agree with the 

recommendation to permit a project 

director to administer more than three 

programs without receiving a waiver. 

We acknowledge that permitting a 

project director to administer more than 

one program encourages collaboration 

among the programs and may provide 

cost savings. However, project directors 

responsible for more than three 

programs may not be able to effectively 

manage each of the programs. In 

situations in which a grantee wants the 

project director to administer more than 

three TRIO or similar programs, the 

grantee must submit a detailed 

justification to the Secretary for 

approval. 

Changes: We have revised proposed 

§ 643.32(c)(3) (final § 643.32(d)(3)) to 

clarify the standard the Secretary will 

use to consider requests for a waiver of 

the restriction on the number of 

programs a project director may 

administer. 

Educational Opportunity Centers (34 

CFR Part 644) 

Section 403(f) of the HEOA made 

changes to the requirements for the 

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) 

program in section 402F of the HEA. 

The HEA now includes a requirement 

that EOC projects be designed ‘‘to 

improve the financial literacy and 

economic literary of students’’ and 

education and counseling services 

‘‘designed to improve the financial and 

economic literacy of students’’ as 

services an EOC project may provide. 

The Department received several 

comments and questions about this new 

program requirement. The commenters 

expressed concern that EOC projects do 

not have sufficient time with 

participants to ‘‘improve’’ their financial 

and economic literacy, in addition to 

meeting all other programmatic 

requirements and needs of participants. 

Another commenter was concerned that 

the additional services required of EOC 

projects, in addition to the new 

populations to be served, will not be 

supported by increased funding. One 

commenter expressed the belief that the 

proposed regulations would require 

EOC grantees to focus on fully preparing 

adult participants for postsecondary 

education programs, where previously 

the program focused on simply 

providing information about 

opportunities to attend college and to 

assist participants with college 

admission and financial aid 

applications. 

We address specific comments on the 

changes to the EOC program regulations 

in the following section. The 

Department also plans to provide 

applicants with additional guidance on 

the new program requirements through 

the published application materials. In 

addition, the Department will conduct 

10 pre-application workshops to assist 

entities interested in applying for EOC 

grants and will post a list of frequently 

asked questions on the TRIO Programs 

Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/about/ 

offices/list/ope/trio/index.html. 

Educational Opportunity Centers (34 

CFR Part 644) 

What is the Educational Opportunity 

Centers program? (§ 644.1) 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that § 644.1 should be revised to 

specifically mention that EOC projects 

provide assistance for individuals who 

have dropped out of secondary schools 

because projects are assessed, in the 

objectives and prior experience sections, 

on their success in assisting participants 

without a secondary school diploma or 

its equivalent. Some commenters also 

expressed concerns that EOC projects do 

not have sufficient time with 

participants to ‘‘improve’’ their financial 

and economic literacy. These 

commenters suggested that the word 

‘‘improve’’ in § 644.1 be changed to 

‘‘provide.’’ 

Discussion: To ensure consistency 

between the statutory language in 

section 402F(a) of the HEA, which 

describes the program authority and 

services to be provided under the EOC 

program, and § 644.1, we decline to 

make the changes requested by the 

commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Who is eligible for a grant? (§ 644.2) 

Comment: Several commenters 

questioned the fact that § 644.2 now 

includes secondary schools as eligible 

applicants. Specifically, they expressed 

concern that because the target 

population of EOC participants is 

adults, secondary schools would be less 

capable of operating an EOC project 

than organizations that serve primarily 

adult populations, such as immigrant 

education programs, employment 

agencies, or postsecondary institutions. 

Two commenters suggested that 

secondary schools should be allowed to 

receive an EOC grant only if there are 

no similar projects in the area designed 

to assist adult students. 

Discussion: We do not have the 

authority to remove secondary schools 

from the list of eligible applicants or to 

limit their eligibility under this program 

because section 402A(b)(1) of the HEA 

specifically includes secondary schools 

among the entities eligible to receive 

EOC grants. 

Changes: None. 

What services may a project provide? 

(§ 644.4) 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed concern about § 644.4(e), 

which includes education and 

counseling services designed to improve 

the financial and economic literacy of 

participants as a permissible service for 

EOC grantees. One commenter wanted 

to know whether participants must be 

tested on their financial literacy to 

determine whether they have benefitted 

from the training. Another commenter 

expressed concern that the additional 

services for the new populations listed 

in § 644.4(k) would not be supported by 

increased funding. 

Discussion: Section 644.4 reflects the 

statutory changes made to the list of 

services that an EOC project may 

provide, as specified in section 402F(b) 

of the HEA. An EOC project may, but is 

not required, to provide these services 

listed in § 644.4. While an EOC project 

may provide education and counseling 

services designed to improve the 

financial and economic literacy of 

participants, there is no requirement 

that participants be tested to determine 

if they benefitted from the services. 

Changes: None. 

What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use? (§ 644.21) 

Objectives (§ 644.21(b)) 

Comment: A number of commenters 

stated that they believed that the point 

value assigned to the first two objectives 

in proposed § 644.21(b) (i.e., (a) 

enrollment of participants who do not 

have a secondary school diploma or its 

recognized equivalent in programs 

leading to a secondary school diploma 

or its equivalent and (b) postsecondary 

enrollment) should be weighted less 

than or equal to the second two 

objectives (i.e., financial aid assistance 

and college admissions assistance) 

because EOC staff spend most of their 

resources and time assisting participants 

with financial aid and college admission 

assistance. One commenter 

recommended reducing the points for 

the postsecondary enrollment objective 

to three points and increasing the points 

for financial assistance and college 

admission assistance objectives to one 

and one half points each. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65736 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

One commenter expressed concern 

that the weighting of the points for the 

objective on enrollment in secondary 

education was less than for 

postsecondary enrollment and that this 

strongly suggested that working with 

persons without a secondary education 

diploma or its equivalent has a lesser 

value than focusing on postsecondary 

enrollment of participants. The 

commenter further stated that it would 

appear more equitable if greater value 

were placed on efforts to assist persons 

in continuing and completing their 

secondary education and to assist those 

same persons in enrolling in a 

postsecondary program. Therefore, the 

commenter recommended that we 

provide four points for enrolling in 

programs that lead to a secondary 

degree or its equivalent and two points 

for postsecondary enrollment. 

Several commenters recommended 

that we revise the postsecondary 

enrollment objective in § 644.21(b)(2) 

and the related PE criterion in 

§ 644.22(d)(2) by eliminating the 

restriction that the participants be 

secondary school graduates before 

enrolling in postsecondary education. 

The commenters recommended these 

changes because, they argued, many 

postsecondary institutions with open 

enrollment policies accept individuals 

who have not first obtained a high 

school diploma or its equivalent. Some 

commenters expressed concern that it 

would be difficult for projects to fulfill 

the postsecondary enrollment objective 

because many adult education programs 

are overbooked and underfunded, 

resulting in EOC participants being 

placed on waiting lists to either 

participate in adult education classes or 

take the GED exam. 

Numerous commenters recommended 

that the word ‘‘student’’ in 

§§ 644.21(b)(3) and (b)(4) be replaced 

with the word ‘‘participant’’ to better 

reflect the population assisted by EOC 

grantees. One commenter also 

recommended that EOC grantees be 

evaluated on how many participants 

applied for financial aid, rather than 

how many participants were assisted 

with applications for financial aid, and 

on how many participants actually 

applied for admission, rather than how 

many participants were assisted with 

college applications. 

Discussion: The objectives for an EOC 

project in § 644.21(b) and the related PE 

criterion in § 644.22(d) generally reflect 

the statutory outcome criteria in section 

402A(f)(3)(E) of the HEA. With regard to 

the postsecondary enrollment objective 

in § 644.21(b)(2) and the related PE 

criterion in § 644.22(d)(2), the language 

referenced is in section 402A(f)(3)(E) of 

the HEA and cannot be changed as the 

commenters requested. 

The Secretary agrees with the 

commenters’ recommendation to 

increase the number of points assigned 

to the student financial aid and the 

college admission objectives, but we do 

not agree that the points assigned to 

these two criteria should be equal to or 

greater than the points assigned to the 

postsecondary enrollment criterion. 

Further, we do not agree with the 

commenter that the points for the 

secondary school diploma objective 

should be equal to or greater than the 

postsecondary enrollment objective 

since postsecondary enrollment is the 

primary goal of the program. 

Nonetheless, we have reduced the 

number of points assigned to the 

postsecondary enrollment objective and 

increased the points assigned to the 

financial aid and college admission 

objectives. While we agree that assisting 

participants in completing financial aid 

and college admission applications are 

valuable services of the program, they 

are not the ultimate goal of EOC. We 

believe that educational attainment is 

the mission of the program and, that 

secondary school completion and 

postsecondary enrollment are the more 

important performance measures for the 

program and should be rewarded 

accordingly. 

The objectives for an EOC project in 

§ 644.21(b) and the related PE criterion 

in § 644.22(d) generally reflect the 

language used for the statutory outcome 

criteria in section 402A(f)(3)(E) of the 

HEA. With regard to the postsecondary 

enrollment objective in § 644.21(b)(2) 

and the related PE criterion in 

§ 644.22(d)(2), the language referenced 

is in section 402A(f)(3)(E) and cannot be 

changed as the commenters requested. 

We have responded to the comment 

about eliminating the restriction that the 

participants be secondary school 

graduates before enrolling in 

postsecondary education in the 

preamble discussion section for 

comments on § 644.22(d)(2) through 

(d)(5) later in this preamble. 

Finally, the Secretary agrees with the 

suggestion to change § 644.21(b)(3) and 

(b)(4) to better reflect the intent of the 

objective, which is to measure the 

extent to which participants completed 

financial aid and college admission 

applications. This change is consistent 

with the statutory language in section 

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

Changes: The Secretary has revised 

the wording of the proposed objectives 

in § 644.21(b)(1) through (b)(5) to refer 

to: (1) Secondary school diploma or 

equivalent, (2) Postsecondary 

enrollment, (3) Financial aid 

applications, and (4) College admission 

applications. The Secretary has also 

revised § 644.21(b) by reducing the 

number of points assigned to the 

postsecondary enrollment objective to 

three points (see paragraph (b)(2)) and 

increasing the number of points for the 

financial aid applications and the 

college admission applications to 1.5 

points each (see paragraphs (b)(3) and 

(b)(4), respectively). 

What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use? Applicant and 

community support § 644.21(d) 

Comment: All of the comments 

regarding our proposed changes to 

§ 644.21(d) recommended that we not 

require EOC applicants to obtain 

commitments from secondary schools. 

The commenters argued that because 

most EOC participants are adults, most 

EOC projects do not work with 

secondary schools; therefore, it does not 

make sense to require EOC projects to 

secure commitments from secondary 

schools. 

Discussion: The Secretary agrees with 

the commenters and has decided not to 

specifically evaluate the extent to which 

the applicant secures commitments of 

support from secondary schools. 

Further, the Secretary has decided that 

current § 644.21(d)(2) remains 

appropriate for the EOC program. The 

Department believes that this provision 

is appropriate because it allows, but 

does not require, the Secretary to 

consider the extent to which an 

applicant secures commitments from 

entities that may include secondary 

schools or institutions of higher 

education. We continue to believe that 

secondary schools and institutions of 

higher education may be able to offer 

assistance and resources to help an EOC 

project achieve its goals. For example, a 

secondary school or college may make 

its computer lab available for adult 

students to use in the evenings. 

Therefore, the Secretary encourages 

each EOC project to solicit 

commitments from many organizations 

within the community it serves, 

including, if appropriate, secondary 

schools. 

Changes: We are not including the 

proposed changes to § 644.21(d) in the 

final regulations. 

How does the Secretary evaluate prior 

experience?—Secondary school 

diploma; Postsecondary enrollment; 

Financial Aid Applications; College 

Admission Applications (§ 644.22(d)(2) 

through (d)(5)) 

Comment: A number of commenters 

expressed concern that awarding PE 

points for the number of participants 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65737 

who receive a secondary school diploma 

conflicts with the selection criteria that 

focuses on the enrollment of 

participants in programs leading to a 

secondary school diploma or its 

equivalent. In addition, some 

commenters stated that it would be 

difficult for projects to meet this 

objective because many adult education 

programs are overbooked and 

underfunded, resulting in EOC 

participants being placed on waiting 

lists to participate in adult education 

classes and to take the GED exam. 

Some commenters noted that while 

some postsecondary institutions permit 

attendance without a high school 

diploma, students who enroll this way 

cannot be counted as EOC successes if 

the project is only permitted to measure 

the number of participants who enroll 

‘‘in programs leading to a secondary 

school diploma or its equivalent.’’ The 

commenters suggested that the prior 

experience criterion in § 644.22(d)(2) be 

changed to refer to the number of 

participants who enroll in a continuing 

education program, so that the criterion 

includes participants without a high 

school diploma who enroll in secondary 

or postsecondary education. 

Alternatively, one commenter 

recommended that the Department 

eliminate this criterion entirely. Other 

commenters noted that § 644.22(d)(2) 

prevents projects from counting a 

participant who enrolls in 

postsecondary education prior to 

attaining a high school diploma as a 

success under the postsecondary 

enrollment, financial aid assistance, or 

college admission assistance criteria, 

which would use high school 

graduation or its equivalent in their 

calculations 

Regarding the postsecondary 

enrollment criterion in § 644.22(d)(3), 

one commenter expressed concern that 

the phrase ‘‘secondary school graduates’’ 

in this criterion would preclude projects 

from counting a student who directly 

enrolls in postsecondary education, 

prior to attaining a high school diploma, 

as a success under the criterion. Several 

other commenters recommended 

extending the time period specified in 

this criterion (i.e., the fall term 

immediately following the school year) 

in which a participant must enroll in a 

program of postsecondary education. 

Specifically, the commenters thought 

the period used to calculate this 

criterion consider the following factors: 

Many EOC participants enroll in 

community colleges, which are 

currently deferring admissions to the 

spring semester because of 

overcrowding; EOC participants enroll 

in nontraditional programs with rolling 

admissions dates that are not 

necessarily in the fall; and EOC 

participants often have greater burdens 

than the typical TRIO participants and, 

as a result, take longer to get into 

postsecondary programs than do lowincome, first-generation students who 

did not drop out of high school. 

Some commenters argued that the 

point value assigned to the 

postsecondary enrollment criterion in 

§ 644.22(d)(3) should be less than or 

equal to the other objectives. A number 

of commenters also argued that the 

point value assigned to the financial aid 

and college admission criteria in 

§ 644.22(d)(4) and (d)(5) should have the 

same or greater value than the other 

criteria because financial aid and 

college admissions assistance are key 

services and EOC staff spend the 

majority of their time assisting 

participants in these areas. 

One commenter suggested that the 

Department change the point value 

assigned to the postsecondary 

enrollment criterion in § 644.22(d)(3) to 

four points and increase the point value 

for financial aid and college admissions 

assistance in § 644.22(d)(4) and (d)(5) to 

two and one half points each. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that the proposed 

secondary school graduation objective 

criterion, under the selection criteria in 

§ 644.21(b), should be changed to align 

with the PE outcome measures. (See the 

discussion and changes for § 644.21(b) 

earlier in this preamble.) We do not, 

however, agree with the commenters’ 

suggestion that the Department remove 

or substantively revise the outcome 

criterion in § 644.22(d)(3) because this 

outcome criterion reflects the criterion 

described in section 402A(f)(3)(E)(ii) of 

the HEA. 

While we sympathize with the 

concerns of the commenters who find 

that it is more difficult for the 

populations served by EOC projects to 

achieve educational goals because of the 

many barriers they face, the purpose of 

PE points is to reward the applicants 

who have met or exceeded their 

approved objectives. Applicants are 

expected to propose objectives that are 

ambitious and attainable given the plan 

they develop to address the needs of the 

target population in their application. 

The applicant’s objectives should take 

into consideration known barriers to 

success, such as waitlists for 

participation in adult education 

programs in the applicant’s target area. 

Section 402A(f)(3)(E)(ii) of the HEA 

specifies that, for the postsecondary 

enrollment criterion, participants must 

be secondary school graduates. 

However, the financial aid and college 

admission applications criteria in the 

statute (see section 402A(f)(3)(E)(iv) of 

the HEA) do not require participants to 

be secondary school graduates; 

therefore, a project may count 

individuals who are not secondary 

school graduates for the purposes of 

these objectives. 

In response to the comment about 

extending the time period in 

§ 644.22(a)(3), the Department has 

decided to change the wording in 

§ 644.22(d)(2) by adding after the word 

‘‘equivalent’’ the words ‘‘within the time 

period specified in the approved 

objective’’ and, in § 644.22(d)(3), by 

removing the words ‘‘by the fall term 

immediately following the school year’’ 

and adding, in their place, the words 

‘‘within the time period specified in the 

approved objective.’’ The Secretary 

plans, subject to meeting the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, to establish 

standard objectives for completion of 

secondary school and postsecondary 

enrollment that will include the time 

frame for measurement. 

Recipients of regular secondary 

school diplomas or other equivalent 

degrees or certificates, including GEDs, 

are considered secondary school 

graduates for purposes of § 644.22(a)(3). 

We agree with the commenters’ 

recommendation to redistribute the 

weights for the PE criteria by reducing 

the number of points assigned to 

postsecondary enrollment and 

increasing the points assigned to 

financial aid assistance and college 

admission assistance. However, we do 

not agree that the points assigned to the 

financial aid assistance and college 

admission assistance criteria should be 

equal to or greater than the points 

assigned to the postsecondary 

enrollment criterion. As we mentioned 

earlier in this preamble, while assisting 

participants in completing financial aid 

and college admission applications is a 

valuable service of the program, it is not 

the ultimate goal of EOC. We believe 

that educational attainment is the 

mission of the program and therefore we 

believe secondary school completion 

and postsecondary enrollment are the 

most important performance measures 

for the program and should be rewarded 

accordingly. We have reduced the 

number of points for the postsecondary 

enrollment criterion in § 644.22(d)(3) to 

five points and increased the points 

assigned to the financial aid assistance 

and college admission assistance criteria 

in § 644.22(d)(4) and (d)(5) to two points 

each. 

Further, to be consistent with the 

changes we made to the objectives in 

§§ 644.21(b)(3) and (b)(4), we have 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65738 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

revised the PE criteria related to 

financial aid and college admission 

assistance in § 644.22(d)(4) and (d)(5). 

Because EOC projects will report on 

program outcomes annually, in 

§ 644.22(d)(2) and (d)(3), we have 

clarified that the objective applies only 

to ‘‘participants served during the 

project year.’’ In § 644.22(d)(2) we have 

revised the wording of the criterion to 

clarify that we will be measuring the 

extent to which participants receive a 

secondary school diploma. 

Changes: We have modified 

§ 644.22(d)(2) to provide that we will 

consider whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to participants served during the 

project year who do not have a 

secondary school diploma or its 

equivalent who will receive a secondary 

school diploma or its equivalent within 

the time period specified in the 

approved objective. 

In § 644.22(d)(3), we have changed the 

weight from 6 points to 5 points. We 

also have changed this section to 

provide that we will consider whether 

the applicant met or exceeded its 

approved objective with regard to the 

secondary school graduates served 

during the project year who enroll in 

programs of postsecondary education 

within the time period specified in the 

approved objective. 

In § 644.22(d)(4), we have changed the 

weight from 1.5 points to 2 points. We 

also have revised this section to provide 

that we will consider whether the 

applicant met or exceeded its objective 

regarding participants applying for 

financial aid. 

Finally, in § 644.22(d)(5), we have 

changed the weight from 1.5 points to 

2 points. We also have amended 

§ 644.22(d)(5) to provide that we will 

consider whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its objective regarding 

participants applying for college 

admission. 

What are allowable costs? (§ 644.30) 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

adding admissions fees to the allowable 

costs in § 644.30(a) and removing the 

requirement that a grantee obtain 

specific prior approval from the 

Secretary from this provision. The 

commenter argued that EOC project 

directors, like project directors in other 

TRIO programs, should have the 

authority to use EOC funds to pay for 

transportation, meals, admissions fees, 

and lodging when they determine these 

expenses are necessary and appropriate. 

One commenter suggested that we add 

service agreements as an allowable cost 

in § 644.30(f) because many technology 

systems may require service agreement 

to cover repairs and software packages. 

Several commenters argued that testing 

fees and the cost of tutoring for the 

general education development (GED) 

exam should be allowable costs for the 

program. 

Discussion: Because EOC is a very low 

cost per participant program, the 

Secretary does not agree with the 

commenter’s suggestion to include 

admissions fees as an allowable cost. 

The other allowable costs in 

§ 644.30(a)—transportation, meals, and, 

with specific prior approval of the 

Secretary, lodging—are only allowable 

under the specific circumstances listed 

in the regulation. Furthermore, we do 

not agree with the commenter’s 

recommendation to remove the 

provision that requires grantees to 

receive prior approval from the 

Secretary to use project funds to pay for 

lodging. Because payments for lodging 

divert scarce resources from direct 

college access services to participants, 

we believe that the expense is only 

justified in exceptional circumstances. 

Section 644.30(c) establishes the 

conditions upon which an EOC project 

may pay for college applications or 

entrance examinations. In response to 

public comments, we have revised 

§ 643.30(c) to include examination fees 

for alternative education programs. We 

also agree with the suggestion to include 

a service agreement as an allowable cost 

in § 644.30(f). 

Changes: We have revised § 644.30(c) 

to include examination fees for 

alternative education programs as an 

allowable cost if a waiver of the fee is 

unavailable. We have also revised 

§ 644.30(f) to include a service 

agreement as an allowable cost. 

What other requirements must a 

grantee meet? 

Number of Participants 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: As discussed in the 

preamble discussion regarding number 

of participants for the TS program, we 

believe it is appropriate for the 

Secretary to identify the minimum and 

maximum grant award amounts and the 

minimum number of participants a 

project must serve each year of the grant 

cycle in the Federal Register notice 

inviting applications for a competition. 

We believe this is true for EOC projects 

(along with UB, SSS and McNair 

projects) as well. This practice will give 

the Department the flexibility to 

establish the minimum number of 

participants to be served based on the 

available resources and other priorities 

for each competition and to adjust these 

numbers for subsequent competitions 

based on our experience, changing 

priorities, and cost analyses. 

Changes: We have revised § 644.32(b) 

to clarify that a grantee must serve at 

least the number of participants that the 

Secretary identifies in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications for 

the competition, and to state that 

through this notice, the Secretary 

provides the minimum and maximum 

grant award amounts for the 

competition. 

Coordination Among Outreach 

Programs Serving Similar Populations 

(new § 644.32(c)(4)) 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Based on comments we 

received on proposed § 643.11(b) for the 

Talent Search program, we have added 

a provision regarding the coordination 

of efforts necessary for students served 

by more than one TRIO or other 

federally funded program to the 

additional requirements a grantee must 

meet under § 644.32(c)(4). Accordingly, 

§ 644.32(c)(4) now requires an EOC 

grantee, to the extent practicable, to 

maintain a record of any services an 

EOC participant receives during the 

project year from another Federal TRIO 

program or other federally funded 

program serving similar populations. 

This change will help ensure that the 

limited funds available under TRIO and 

other programs for disadvantaged 

populations are used effectively and 

efficiently by minimizing the 

duplication of services through 

coordination of activities. 

Change: A new § 644.32(c)(4) has 

been added to require grantees to 

maintain a record of any services EOC 

participants receive during the project 

year from another Federal TRIO 

program or other federally supported 

program serving similar populations. 

Project Director (final § 644.32(d)(3)) 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: For the reasons discussed 

in the preamble section on Project 

Director under the TS program 

(proposed § 643.32(c)(3), final 

§ 643.32(d)(3)), we have revised 

proposed § 644.32(c)(3) (final 

§ 644.32(d)(3)). 

Changes: We have revised proposed 

§ 644.32(c)(3) (final § 644.32(db)(3)) to 

clarify the standard the Secretary will 

use to consider requests for a waiver of 

the restriction on the number of 

programs a project director may 

administer. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65739 

4Report available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/ 

offices/list/ope/trio/ub-ubms-outcomes-2004.doc. 

Upward Bound (UB) Program (34 CFR 

Part 645) 

Who is eligible for a grant? (§ 645.2) 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concerns about the eligibility 

of secondary schools to apply for UB 

funding and the impact this change 

would have on the UB program. 

Specifically, commenters were 

concerned with how secondary schools 

might use UB funding. For example, 

some commenters questioned whether 

secondary schools would be able to 

fully implement an UB project for the 

intended population of students and 

expressed concern that secondary 

schools would try to use the UB funds 

to support activities and services for 

students not eligible for UB or to fund 

programs or initiatives previously 

supported with State or local funding. 

One commenter recommended making a 

secondary school eligible only if there is 

no institution of higher education that is 

interested in and capable of conducting 

a UB program in the target area. The 

commenter argued that this proposal 

would allow some secondary schools to 

be eligible for grants but would retain 

the current program structure in which 

UB grants are awarded primarily to 

postsecondary institutions. 

Discussion: The Department does not 

have the authority to make the changes 

recommended by the commenters 

because the HEOA amended section 

402A(b)(1) of the HEA to eliminate the 

restriction on the eligibility of a 

secondary school to receive UB grants. 

The commenters’ suggestions are 

inconsistent with the HEA. 

Changes: None. 

Who is eligible to participate in an 

Upward Bound Project? (§ 645.3) 

Comment: One commenter noted that, 

to reflect the HEA, § 645.3 should be 

amended to include as eligible 

participants individuals who are at 

high-risk of academic failure. One 

commenter also noted that although 

section 402C(e)(5) of the HEA states that 

no student will be denied participation 

in an UB project because he or she will 

enter the project after the ninth grade, 

§ 645.3(d) still includes the requirement 

that a participant, at the time of initial 

selection, must not have entered the 

twelfth grade. In addition, one 

commenter suggested adding ‘‘not 

currently enrolled in postsecondary 

education’’ to the participant eligibility 

criteria for VUB participants to clarify 

that veterans currently enrolled in 

postsecondary education are not eligible 

project participants. 

Discussion: We agree that § 645.3(b) 

needs to be amended to include an 

individual who has a high risk for 

academic failure as an eligible UB 

participant (see definitions in § 645.6 for 

individual who has a high risk for 

academic failure and a veteran who has 

a high risk for academic failure). We 

also agree with the commenter that we 

need to amend § 645.3(d); therefore, we 

have removed the words ‘‘but has not 

entered the twelfth grade.’’ Therefore, if 

a senior is otherwise eligible, he or she 

could participate in an UB program 

during his or her last year of high 

school. 

Nonetheless, the Secretary encourages 

regular UB and UBMS projects to select 

students before their senior year. A 

recent report entitled Upward Bound 

and Upward Bound Math-Science 

Program Outcomes for Participants 

Expected to Graduate High School in 

2004–05 4 concluded that one consistent 

predictor of postsecondary enrollment 

among regular UB and UBMS 

participants is the length of their 

participation in the UB program. Those 

students who participated in the 

program longer were more likely to 

continue on to postsecondary education. 

For example, 55.3 percent of those who 

participated in the program for less than 

one year went on to college compared 

with 91.2 percent of those who 

participated for three years or more. 

With regard to the commenter’s 

recommendation regarding veterans in 

postsecondary education, we have not 

made any changes to this section of the 

final regulations because this issue was 

not addressed in the NPRM. However, it 

is the Department’s view that VUB 

projects should not serve individuals 

enrolled in postsecondary education as 

the statutory goal of the UB program is 

to ‘‘generate the skills and motivation 

necessary for success in education 

beyond secondary school.’’ Veterans 

served by VUB who enroll in 

postsecondary education can be served 

by the SSS program or other programs 

designed to provide academic support 

services for individuals enrolled in 

programs of postsecondary education. 

Changes: We have added a new 

paragraph (b)(3) to § 645.3 to include as 

eligible participants individuals who 

have a high risk for academic failure, 

and we have removed § 645.3(d) which 

required that participants be initially 

selected to participate in the UB 

program prior to entering the twelfth 

grade. 

What definitions apply to the Upward 

Bound Program? (§ 645.6) 

Comment: Comments were received 

concerning several definitions. Some 

commenters requested that the 

Department add definitions for the 

terms ‘‘postsecondary completion,’’ 

‘‘postsecondary,’’ ‘‘postsecondary 

institution,’’ and ‘‘postsecondary 

degree.’’ Several comments were 

received regarding the definition of the 

term individual who has a high risk for 

academic failure. A few commenters 

requested clarification on whether one 

or all four of the ‘‘high risk’’ criteria in 

the definition had to be met for an 

individual to meet the definition. Other 

commenters expressed concern that the 

proposed criteria for high risk include 

using grade point averages (GPAs) (see 

paragraph (4) of the definition) and the 

State assessments in reading, language 

arts, and math (see paragraphs (1) and 

(2) of the definition) because these 

measures are not standard across the 

country. 

Some commenters also questioned the 

proposed criteria related to the math 

courses completed by the ninth grade 

(see paragraph (3) of the definition). 

These commenters stated that most 

incoming ninth graders have not taken 

geometry and thus, almost all ninth 

graders could qualify for UB based on 

this definition. A few commenters 

suggested that qualifiers are needed in 

this paragraph to take into account the 

wide variety of math course sequences 

utilized by high schools and because 

situations can occur that may cause a 

participant to be deemed high risk even 

if he or she is on track to graduate. For 

instance, one commenter argued that, 

based on the proposed definition, a 

tenth grade student could be selected to 

participate in the UB project because he 

or she had not completed geometry until 

the end of the tenth grade, even though 

the student was making normal progress 

in completing the sequence of math 

courses needed for high school 

graduation and postsecondary 

enrollment. 

A few commenters stated that the 

definition of individual who has a highrisk for academic failure should be 

removed because UB already requires 

that two-thirds of all participants be 

both low income and first generation. 

These commenters suggested that this 

definition would create an additional 

burden on grantees to monitor and 

select an additional student subgroup, 

and might compromise the program 

mission by opening eligibility to 

students who are not low income or first 

generation and moving the program 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65740 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

from college preparation to drop-out 

prevention. 

We also received many comments on 

the definition of a rigorous secondary 

school program of study. We address 

these comments in detail in the 

summary of comments, discussion, and 

changes sections for § 643.7 (TS 

program) earlier in this preamble. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

the terms ‘‘postsecondary completion,’’ 

‘‘postsecondary,’’ ‘‘postsecondary 

institution,’’ and ‘‘postsecondary degree’’ 

are commonly understood and therefore 

do not need to be defined in these 

regulations. However, when these terms 

are used in the standard PE objective, 

the Department will provide additional 

guidance in the published application 

materials as to how these terms apply to 

the PE outcome criteria. 

With regard to the definition of the 

term individual who has a high risk for 

academic failure (regular UB 

participant), we use the word ‘‘or’’ 

between paragraphs (3) and (4) of the 

definition to convey that an individual 

only needs to meet one of the criteria to 

be considered an individual who has a 

high risk for academic failure. 

We do not view the fact that State 

assessments are not standardized across 

the country to be a problem because 

individuals who do not meet 

proficiency levels on their State’s tests 

or who have low GPAs are at risk of not 

completing high school or not being 

prepared for postsecondary education. 

We acknowledge that the traditional 

sequence of high school math courses 

includes taking algebra in ninth grade 

and geometry in tenth grade; therefore, 

a student should not be considered an 

individual who has a high risk for 

academic failure if he or she does not 

complete geometry until the end of 

tenth grade. 

Changes: We have revised paragraph 

(3) of the definition of individual who 

has a high risk for academic failure to 

clarify that a student is at high risk for 

academic failure if he or she has not 

successfully completed pre-algebra or 

algebra by the beginning of the tenth 

grade. 

What services do all Upward Bound 

projects provide? (§ 645.11) 

Comment: A large number of 

commenters recommended that, under 

proposed § 645.11(a)(1) and (a)(2), the 

term ‘‘postsecondary’’ be deleted. In the 

case of proposed § 645.11(a)(1), the 

commenters believed that academic 

tutoring provided in high school seldom 

has a direct impact on student success 

in postsecondary level coursework. 

Commenters also stated that the 

regulations are unclear as to the 

timeframe in which the tutoring must be 

provided; they asked whether it would 

be while the student is enrolled in high 

school or in a postsecondary program, 

or both. In the case of proposed 

§ 645.11(a)(2), the commenters 

expressed concern that there are so 

many postsecondary institutions that 

UB participants attend, it would be hard 

to provide advice and assistance for 

specific course selection and that it 

would be best for participants to receive 

this service from the postsecondary 

institution. Commenters also stated that 

it was unclear whether UB staff would 

be required to continue to advise a 

student on postsecondary course 

selection after the student graduates 

from the UB program, whether there 

would be additional funding to provide 

the services, and whether served 

students who graduated would be 

counted in the number of students 

served each year. 

Several commenters expressed 

concerns about proposed § 645.11(a)(5), 

which would require that UB projects 

provide high school dropouts guidance 

and assistance in secondary school 

reentry, alternative education and GED 

programs, and entry into postsecondary 

education. Some asked that the section 

be eliminated because UB projects do 

not usually serve dropouts. Other 

commenters asked for further guidance 

on how the services would be provided 

and whether individuals receiving these 

services would be considered UB 

participants. In regard to proposed 

§ 645.11(b)(4) and (b)(5), one commenter 

indicated that it is too difficult to 

provide instruction in composition and 

literature in the summer and it should 

be left up to the program to decide 

which instruction to do. Another 

commenter suggested replacing the term 

‘‘foreign language’’ with ‘‘world 

language’’ or ‘‘second language.’’ 

Under proposed § 645.11(a)(6), 

commenters requested clarification on 

the financial and economic literacy 

services that grantees must provide to 

students’ parents. 

Discussion: This section of the 

regulations includes the statutory list of 

‘‘Required Services’’ a UB project must 

provide under section 402C(b) of the 

HEA. We cannot include in these 

regulations changes that would alter the 

statutory requirements. The Department, 

however, plans to provide applicants 

with additional written guidance on 

how to respond to the new program 

requirements and the evaluation criteria 

in the published application materials. 

Changes: None. 

What services may regular Upward 

Bound and Upward Bound MathScience projects provide? (§ 645.12) 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

including language to state that a project 

may provide other activities designed to 

meet the purposes of the legislation 

because this could encourage new and 

innovative approaches. A few 

commenters lauded on-campus 

residential programs as being the most 

important UB activity and 

recommended that the applications that 

propose a summer on-campus 

residential program be given additional 

points in the application process. One 

commenter also suggested that oncampus residential programs be 

designated as a required service. 

Discussion: Section 645.12 includes 

the statutory list of ‘‘Permissible 

Services’’ an UB project may provide. 

The regulations do not prohibit grantees 

from offering additional services to meet 

the goals of the program, and grantees 

may offer additional services not 

explicitly mentioned as required or 

permissible. We have revised § 645.12 to 

reflect that intent more clearly. 

Changes: We have revised § 645.12 by 

adding a new paragraph (g) to state that 

grantees may provide other services that 

are consistent with the purposes and 

goals of the UB program. 

What additional services may Veterans 

Upward Bound projects provide? 

(§ 645.15(d)) 

Comment: Several commenters asked 

whether the additional services that 

Veterans Upward Bound projects 

provide are mandatory or permissible. 

In addition, one commenter suggested 

eliminating § 645.15(d) because it 

appeared to be redundant with the 

requirements in § 645.11(b), which 

requires that all UB grantees, including 

VUB grantees, provide instruction in 

mathematics through pre-calculus and 

in laboratory science. The commenter 

also recommended adding to the list of 

additional services for VUB grantees in 

§ 645.15: exposure to cultural events, 

academic programs, and other activities 

not usually available to disadvantaged 

veterans because these services are 

permissible for the low-income, firstgeneration students served by UB and 

UBMS projects. The commenter argued 

that providing these opportunities and 

experiences would positively influence 

a veteran’s postsecondary and career 

decisions. 

Discussion: We agree that the section 

heading of § 645.15 incorrectly suggests 

that the services in the regulations are 

required services. We have revised the 

section heading to clarify that the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65741 

services are voluntary. Because section 

402C(c) of the HEA requires all UB 

projects to provide math and science 

instruction and section 402C(d) of the 

HEA further permits math and science 

preparation for veterans, we understand 

why some commenters viewed the new 

language in § 645.15(d) as being 

redundant with § 645.11(b). However, 

§ 645.15(d) refers to special services that 

could supplement the project’s 

instructional program in math and 

science. Accordingly and to be 

consistent with the statutory language, 

we are not changing § 645.15(d). 

The Secretary does not agree with the 

request to include in § 645.15 exposure 

to cultural events, academic programs, 

and other activities. The list of 

permissible services in section 402C(d) 

of the HEA only identifies one of the 

permissible services as applicable 

specifically to veterans (see section 

402C(d)(6) of the HEA) and that service 

is the one reflected in § 645.15(d). 

Further, section 402C(d)(1) of the HEA 

is clear that services, such as exposure 

to cultural events, are meant specifically 

for disadvantaged youth. 

Changes: We have revised the section 

heading for § 645.15 by replacing the 

word ‘‘do’’ with the word ‘‘may’’ to 

clarify that the listed services are 

voluntary. 

How many applications for an Upward 

Bound award may an eligible applicant 

submit? (§ 645.20) 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that § 645.20 clarify what qualifies as 

‘‘another designated different 

population.’’ 

Discussion: As provided in 

§ 645.20(b), the Secretary will designate, 

in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications, the different populations 

for which an applicant may submit a 

separate application. This provision 

gives the Department the flexibility to 

designate the different populations for 

each competition based upon changing 

national needs. 

Changes: None. 

What assurances must an applicant 

include in an application? Participant 

Eligibility (§ 645.21) 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that allowing one-third of participants 

to be eligible based upon a high risk for 

academic failure would change the 

fundamental purpose of the UB program 

with regard to participant eligibility for 

services. Many commenters stated that 

adding the high risk for academic failure 

assurance in § 645.21(a)(2) would open 

the door for children of affluent families 

to receive services over more needy 

students. 

Discussion: Section 402C(e)(1) of the 

HEA states that not less than two-thirds 

of youth participating in the project 

must be low-income individuals who 

are first generation college students and 

that the remaining participants must be 

low-income individuals, first generation 

college students, or students who have 

a high risk for academic failure. Section 

645.21 reflects this statutory 

requirement. We note, however, that 

students who have a high risk for 

academic failure are just one of the 

groups that can be included in the onethird calculation. Therefore, a UB 

project is not required to serve students 

who have high risk of academic failure 

and may choose to serve only lowincome and potential first-generation 

college students. 

Changes: None. 

What assurances must an applicant 

include in an application? Coordination 

Among Outreach Programs Serving 

Similar Populations (§§ 645.21(a)(4), 

(b)(4), and (c)(3)) 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Based on comments we 

received on proposed § 643.11(b) for the 

Talent Search program—(Coordination 

Among Outreach Programs Serving 

Similar Populations), we have revised 

§ 645.21(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(3), 

regarding the coordination of efforts 

necessary to minimize the duplication 

of services and promote collaborations 

so that more students can be served. We 

believe that these changes, which we 

have made across the TRIO programs, 

will help ensure that the limited funds 

available under TRIO and other 

programs for disadvantaged students are 

used effectively and efficiently by 

minimizing the duplication of services 

through coordination of activities. 

Changes: We have revised 

§ 645.21(a)(4), (b)(4) and (c)(3) to clarify 

that UB projects must collaborate with 

other Federal TRIO projects, GEAR UP 

projects, or programs serving similar 

populations that are serving the same 

target schools or target area to minimize 

the duplication of services and promote 

collaborations so that more students can 

be served. 

What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use? Objectives (Academic 

Performance) (§ 645.31(b)(1)(i) and 

(b)(1)(ii)) 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concerns regarding the 

selection criteria in § 645.31(b)(1)(i) 

(Academic performance, as measured by 

grade point average (GPA)) and 

§ 645.31(b)(1)(ii) (Academic 

performance, as measured by 

standardized test scores). The 

commenters argued that the points 

assigned for the GPA objective should 

be reduced. The commenters stated that 

it is difficult to increase GPAs of highrisk students by even a small 

percentage. Also, as students undertake 

a more rigorous curriculum their GPAs 

may increase or decrease over time. 

Commenters also asked if the projects 

could use a weighted GPA for those 

students taking rigorous courses. One 

commenter expressed concern over 

using State assessments, on a national 

level, as a measurement of performance 

because of the differences in State 

assessments throughout the country. 

The commenter recommended that the 

Department disseminate a list of 

approved standardized tests to promote 

consistency among projects reporting 

from one year to the next. 

Discussion: We do not agree with the 

commenters’ suggestion to reduce the 

points assigned to the academic 

performance as measured by GPA 

criterion. The 1.5 points for this 

criterion represents only 10 percent of 

the total PE points a project could earn; 

reducing the points further would go 

against the goals of the HEA. 

The cumulative GPA for this selection 

criteria should be calculated on all 

courses taken based on a four-point 

scale. The GPA may be weighted for 

students completing honors or 

Advanced Placement courses. If the 

target schools use other scales, the GPA 

should be converted to the extent 

possible to a four-point scale. 

In regard to the commenter’s 

suggestion regarding § 645.31(b)(1)(ii) 

the Department does not believe it is 

appropriate to provide a list of approved 

standardized tests because we do not 

have the authority to regulate State 

assessments. 

Changes: None. 

What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use? Objectives (Secondary 

school graduation and completion of 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study) (§ 645.31(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(iv)) 

Comment: In § 645.31(b)(1)(iii) 

(Secondary school graduation), one 

commenter recommended inserting the 

words ‘‘retention and’’ after the words 

‘‘Secondary school’’ and before 

‘‘graduation’’ to more accurately reflect 

the language in the statute. Another 

commenter suggested adding ‘‘or a GED 

diploma’’ after ‘‘regular secondary 

school diploma’’, to mirror 

§ 645.11(a)(5)(iii), which includes entry 

into general educational development 

(GED) programs as a required service. 

In regard to § 645.31(b)(1)(iv) 

(Completion of rigorous secondary 

school program of study), several 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65742 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

commenters stated that assisting 

students to complete a rigorous 

secondary school program of study 

might not be realistic for all 

participants, given that some UB 

grantees work with English Language 

Learners (ELL) and high-risk students. 

The commenters stated that the distinct 

needs of these populations were not 

adequately considered when imposing 

completion of a rigorous secondary 

school program of study as one of the 

program’s outcome criteria. One 

commenter argued that this criterion 

may have the unintended consequence 

of limiting a project’s ability to enroll 

these groups of students. Another 

commenter noted that some students do 

not complete a rigorous program 

because their educational goals include 

a technical or associate’s degree, and 

their school system places them on a 

non-rigorous graduation track. Another 

commenter stated that the goal of 

completing a rigorous secondary school 

program of study is for participants to 

be eligible for the Academic 

Competitiveness Grants (ACG); 

however, this grant program is being 

phased-out. The commenter asked 

whether the criteria for the rigorous 

secondary school program of study will 

remain, even if the participants will no 

longer be eligible for ACG. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

recommendation to add the words 

‘‘retention and’’ to the secondary school 

graduation criterion in § 645.31(b)(1)(iii) 

to be consistent with the outcome 

criterion in the statute and the PE 

criterion in § 645.32(e)(1)(iii). However, 

to remain consistent with the statutory 

language regarding the UB program 

outcomes in section 402A(f)(3)(B) of the 

HEA, we do not agree with the 

recommendation to add the words ‘‘or a 

GED diploma’’. 

Under § 645.31(b)(1)(iv) (Completion 

of a rigorous secondary school program 

of study), we are not requiring projects 

to serve only participants in a rigorous 

secondary school program of study. The 

Department agrees that some English 

Language Learners, high-risk students, 

or students in a vocational program of 

study might not be ready to undertake 

a rigorous secondary school program of 

study or may not find such a rigorous 

program of study relevant to their 

educational goals. However, to be 

consistent with statutory intent, the UB 

project should encourage all UB 

students to undertake a rigorous 

curriculum. In addition, section 

402A(f)(3)(A)(iv) of the HEA states that 

the participants who complete a 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study should be eligible for programs 

such as ACG. Therefore, the 

discontinuation of ACG does not impact 

the requirement related to a rigorous 

secondary school program of study as 

defined in § 645.6. 

Changes: We have amended 

§ 645.31(b)(1)(iii) to refer to secondary 

school retention and graduation. 

What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use? Objectives 

(Postsecondary completion) 

(§ 645.31(b)(1)(vi)) 

Comments: In regard to the criterion 

in § 645.31(b)(1)(vi) (Postsecondary 

completion), several commenters 

suggested that postsecondary 

completion should include a 

baccalaureate degree, associate’s degree, 

or a certificate of completion of a 

postsecondary program. Other 

commenters asked if the definition of 

postsecondary completion, as used in 

this criterion, included the attainment 

of a four-year or two-year degree. If 

either degree is satisfactory, one 

commenter stated that a project that sent 

students to a two-year institution versus 

a four-year institution would be able to 

establish a more ambitious objective due 

to the fact that it is easier to track 

participants for two years rather than for 

four years. Many commenters argued 

that UB is not authorized or funded to 

continue working with students once 

they complete the project. In addition, 

some commenters stated that a program 

geared toward high school students 

should not be held responsible for a 

participant’s completion of a 

postsecondary education. The 

commenters suggested that persistence 

in postsecondary education was a better 

measurement of project success. 

Commenters also stated that there are no 

selection criteria for the Plan of 

Operation or Budget sections of the 

application to address on-going followup support of graduates. One 

commenter requested that the 

Department clarify how it will 

determine the parameters and number 

or percentages for tracking participants. 

Discussion: Section 402A(f)(3)(A)(vi) 

of the HEA requires the Department to 

use the postsecondary completion 

criterion, to the extent practicable, in 

evaluating the quality and effectiveness 

of a UB project. Due to the UB program’s 

intensive, college-preparatory nature, 

we do not agree with the commenters 

who suggest that any postsecondary 

credential, including a certificate, 

should be included in postsecondary 

completion measurements. For the 

purpose of awarding PE points for 

projects’ success under the 

postsecondary completion outcome 

criterion, the Department considers a 

program of postsecondary education to 

be a combination of courses and related 

activities whose curriculum is designed 

primarily for students who are beyond 

the compulsory age for high school and 

which leads to the attainment of an 

associate’s or bachelor’s degree, and 

which excludes postsecondary 

certificates and vocational and adult 

basic education programs. 

The Secretary plans, subject to 

meeting the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, to 

establish a standard objective related to 

postsecondary completion in the 

application package for the UB program. 

Further, each applicant will establish in 

its application the project’s target with 

regard to postsecondary completion. 

The baseline data the applicant provides 

in the Need section of the application 

will provide the peer reviewers with the 

information needed to assess the extent 

to which the applicant’s target for the 

objective is both ambitious and 

attainable. 

We understand the commenters’ 

concerns about not having the authority 

or resources to provide follow-up 

support for UB graduates as they 

progress through postsecondary 

education; however, the new statutory 

outcome criteria effectively requires that 

UB projects track the academic progress 

of participants through postsecondary 

completion. Section 645.31(c)(10) (Plan 

of Operation) requires applicants to 

have a follow-up plan for tracking 

graduates of UB projects as they enter 

and continue in postsecondary 

education. Further, § 645.31(f) (Budget 

and cost effectiveness) requires 

applicants to be evaluated on the extent 

to which the budget for the project is 

adequate to support planned project 

services and activities. Therefore, an 

applicant may include in the proposed 

budget for the project costs related to 

tracking the academic progress of former 

participants through postsecondary 

education. 

Changes: None. 

What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use? Applicant and 

Community Support: Resources secured 

through written commitments 

(§ 645.31(d)(2)) 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Based on comments we 

received on proposed § 643.21(d)(2) 

(Applicant and community support) for 

the TS program, we have revised 

§ 645.31(d)(2) to ensure consistency 

across programs. A detailed discussion 

of the comments and rationale for the 

changes is included earlier in this 

preamble, in the summary of comments, 

discussion, and changes related to 

§ 643.21(d)(2). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65743 

5 GAO, ‘‘Additional Efforts Could Help Education 

With its Education Goals,’’ May 2003, available at 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03568.pdf. 

Changes: We have revised 

§ 645.31(d)(2) to provide that the 

Secretary will evaluate the applicant 

and community support for the 

proposed project on the basis on the 

extent to which the applicant can show 

that it has resources secured through 

written commitments from community 

partners. This section also requires that: 

(i) An applicant that is an institution of 

higher education must include in its 

application commitments from the 

target schools and community 

organizations; (ii) an applicant that is a 

secondary school must include in its 

commitments from institutions of higher 

education, community organizations, 

and, as appropriate, other secondary 

schools and the school district; and (iii) 

an applicant that is a community 

organization must include in its 

application commitments from the 

target schools and institutions of higher 

education. 

How does the Secretary evaluate prior 

experience? Regular Upward Bound 

and Upward Bound Math and Science 

Centers (§ 645.32(e)(1)) 

Comment: In regard to proposed 

§ 645.32(e)(1)(ii)(A) (Academic 

Performance, as measured by grade 

point average (GPA)), one commenter 

suggested that the GPA of 2.5 be 

changed to 2.0 to be consistent with the 

Federal Pell Grant’s requirement that 

students who receive financial aid 

maintain a 2.0 GPA. Several 

commenters requested clarification on 

whether the GPA standard was 

weighted or not weighted. 

In regard to proposed 

§ 645.32(e)(1)(ii)(B) (Academic 

Performance, as measured by 

standardized test scores), one 

commenter requested that the 

Department publish an approved list of 

standardized tests to provide for 

consistency in reporting among 

grantees. The commenter stated that the 

differences in the various State 

assessments do not allow for consistent 

measurements of performance of UB 

projects. 

In regard to proposed 

§ 645.32(e)(1)(iii), which defines PE 

points for secondary school retention 

and graduation, one commenter 

suggested that we add the phrase ‘‘or a 

general educational development (GED) 

diploma’’ after the phrase ‘‘regular 

secondary school diploma’’. 

In regard to proposed 

§ 645.32(e)(1)(iv), which defines PE 

points for a rigorous secondary school 

program of study, one commenter stated 

that it is impossible for grantees to 

ensure that students complete a rigorous 

secondary school program of study, 

given that some school districts do not 

offer rigorous courses. Another 

commenter emphasized that this PE 

criterion would limit the ability of 

projects to work with a high-risk 

population, as this population may not 

have the ability to undertake a rigorous 

secondary school program of study. 

Several commenters asked that 

§ 645.32(e)(1)(v) be changed to permit 

participants’ postsecondary enrollment 

to take place by the fall or spring term 

immediately following the school year, 

instead of by the fall term. Commenters 

stated that some participants need to 

delay enrollment in postsecondary 

education for several reasons, including 

the need to work to support their efforts 

to enroll, family responsibilities, 

changes in the economy, and the fact 

that institutions may be granting 

acceptance for the spring semester 

instead of the fall semester due to 

budget cuts and the large number of 

applicants. These commenters argued 

that their recommended change would 

allow grantees to count summer 

graduates and GED recipients who 

matriculate in the spring in the relevant 

calculations for PE points. 

In regard to proposed 

§ 645.32(e)(1)(vi), which discusses the 

PE criteria based on postsecondary 

completion, several commenters stated 

that tracking participants through 

postsecondary completion is 

impractical. These commenters stated 

that postsecondary completion should 

not be assessed as part of PE, due to the 

fact that UB grantees do not provide 

services during the participant’s 

postsecondary tenure and also because 

it is difficult to accurately track 

participants who may drop out, enroll 

in several different institutions 

consecutively or simultaneously, or use 

different names to enroll. Commenters 

suggested using postsecondary 

persistence instead of postsecondary 

completion as the PE criterion. If the 

criterion remains, the commenters 

recommended changing the point value 

to 0.5. 

Discussion: In response to the 

commenters’ recommendation that we 

permit participants’ postsecondary 

enrollment to take place by the fall or 

spring term immediately following the 

school year, instead of by the fall term, 

we have decided to remove from the 

proposed regulations the point of 

measurement (e.g., fall term). Further, 

we also have decided to remove from 

§ 645.32(e)(1)(ii)(A) and (e)(1)(ii)(B) 

(e.g., State assessments) the GPA 

standard (e.g., 2.5). Instead, the 

Department will establish the point of 

measurement and the standards for 

measuring academic performance when 

establishing the standard PE objectives 

for each grant competition. These 

changes will give the Department the 

flexibility to adjust the standards of 

measurement and period of 

measurement for UB PE objectives based 

on changing conditions. The Secretary 

plans, subject to meeting the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, to establish 

standard objectives for each of the PE 

criteria in the application package for 

the UB program. 

With regard to the requests for 

clarification regarding the cumulative 

GPA, as discussed in the response to 

comments regarding § 645.31(b)(1)(i) 

(Objectives), the GPA should be 

calculated on all courses taken based on 

a four-point scale. The GPA may be 

weighted for students completing 

honors or Advanced Placement courses. 

If the target schools use other scales, the 

GPA should be converted to the extent 

possible to a four-point scale. 

With regard to proposed 

§ 645.32(e)(1)(iv), regarding completion 

of a rigorous secondary school program 

of study, we acknowledge that not all 

UB participants may be ready to 

undertake a rigorous secondary school 

program of study; however, UB 

participants should be encouraged to 

complete a rigorous secondary school 

program of study because research 

suggests that students who take rigorous 

classes in high school are more likely to 

enroll in and complete postsecondary 

education which are the goals of the UB 

program. A 2003 GAO report, for 

instance, reported that students taking a 

highly rigorous secondary school 

program of study were 1.7 times more 

likely to earn a bachelor’s degree than 

students who took a basic high school 

curriculum.5

With regard to the postsecondary 

completion criterion in proposed 

§ 645.32(e)(1)(vi), section 

402A(f)(3)(A)(vi) of the HEA requires 

the Department to use this criterion, to 

the extent practicable, in evaluating the 

quality and effectiveness of an UB 

project for the purpose of assessing PE. 

The Secretary does not agree with the 

commenters’ suggestion to lower the 

points allocated to the postsecondary 

completion criterion. The 1.5 points 

represent only 10 percent of the total PE 

points a project can earn and is an 

appropriate value to place on this 

criterion. 

We have made a number of clarifying 

changes to § 645.32(e)(1)(ii) through (vi). 

First, we have clarified that when we 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65744 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

refer to ‘‘project participants’’ or ‘‘current 

participants’’, we mean those 

participants served during the project 

year. For consistency with the 

regulatory language used for the PE 

criteria in § 643.22 (TS) and § 644.22 

(EOC), we have deleted the words ‘‘the 

percentage of’’ where it appeared in 

proposed § 645.32(e)(1)(ii) through (vi). 

Changes: The Secretary has amended 

§ 645.32(e)(1)(ii) through (vi) to provide 

that for purposes of the PE evaluation of 

Regular Upward Bound and Upward 

Bound Math and Science Centers grants 

awarded after January 1, 2009, the 

Secretary evaluates the applicant’s PE 

on the basis of the following outcome 

criteria: 

Academic Performance 

(§ 645.32(e)(1)(ii)) 

(A) Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to participants served during the 

project year who had a cumulative GPA 

at the end of the school year that was 

not less than the GPA specified in the 

approved objective. (1.5 points) 

(B) Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to participants served during the 

project period who met the academic 

performance levels on standardized 

tests as specified in the approved 

objectives. (1.5 points) 

Secondary School Retention and 

Graduation (645.32(e)(1)(iii)) 

Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to participants served during the 

project year who returned the next 

school year to secondary school or 

graduated from secondary school with a 

regular secondary school diploma. (3 

points) 

Rigorous Secondary School Program of 

Study (§ 645.32(e)(1)(iv)) 

Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to current and prior participants 

with an expected high school 

graduation date in the school year who 

completed a rigorous secondary school 

program of study. (1.5 points) 

Postsecondary Enrollment 

(§ 645.32(e)(1)(v)) 

Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to current and prior participants 

with an expected high school 

graduation date in the school year who 

enrolled in a program of postsecondary 

education within the time period 

specified in the approved objective. (3 

points) 

Postsecondary Completion 

(§ 645.32(e)(1)(vi)) 

Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to postsecondary enrollees who 

attained a postsecondary degree within 

the number of years specified in the 

approved objective. (1.5 points) 

How does the Secretary evaluate prior 

experience? Veterans Upward Bound 

(VUB) (§ 645.32(d)(2) and (e)(2)) 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that the Department use the 

number of VUB participants that 

completed the project during the project 

year, instead of the approved number of 

participants or the actual number of 

participants served in a given year, if 

greater than the approved number of 

participants, as the denominator for the 

academic improvement on a 

standardized test criterion for PE points 

in § 645.32(e)(2)(ii). One commenter 

argued that VUB is an open-entry, openexit program and that veterans who 

enroll may not be able to complete all 

needed academic services during a 

single reporting period, for a variety of 

reasons. Requiring veterans to take a 

post-test prior to receiving all 

appropriate academic services would 

not yield an accurate assessment of the 

grantee’s success. The commenter 

contended that because all participants 

will not be able to take a pre-test, 

receive all necessary services, and take 

a post-test during a single project year, 

this criterion should only measure those 

participants that completed the project 

during the reporting period. 

With regard to the postsecondary 

enrollment criterion for PE points, 

several commenters requested that 

§ 645.32(e)(2)(iv) be changed to permit 

participants’ postsecondary enrollment 

by the fall or spring term immediately 

following program completion. The 

change would allow projects to count 

program graduates who matriculate to 

postsecondary education on a nontraditional timeline. 

Discussion: For the reasons set forth 

in the preceding section, we have made 

a number of clarifying changes to 

§ 645.32(e)(2) to mirror the changes we 

made in § 645.32(e)(1). These changes 

clarify that the criteria relate to 

participants served during the project 

year and that the Department will 

establish the point of measurement for 

the postsecondary enrollment and 

postsecondary completion criteria when 

establishing the standard PE objectives 

for each grant competition. Further, the 

changes clarify that for § 645.32(e)(2)(ii) 

(Academic improvement on 

standardized tests) will be assessed only 

for those participants who completed 

the VUB program during the project 

year. 

Changes: The Secretary has amended 

§ 645.32(e)(2) to provide that, for 

purposes of the PE evaluation of 

Veterans Upward Bound grants awarded 

after January 1, 2009, the Secretary 

evaluates the applicant’s PE on the basis 

of the following outcome criteria: 

Academic Improvement on 

Standardized Test (§ 645.32(e)(2)(ii)) 

Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to participants served during the 

project year who completed their 

Veterans Upward Bound educational 

program during the project year and 

who improved their academic 

performance as measured by a 

standardized test taken by participants 

before and after receiving services from 

the project. (3 points) 

Education Program Retention and 

Completion (§ 645.32(e)(2)(iii)) 

Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to participants who were served 

during the project year who remained in 

or completed their Veterans Upward 

Bound educational program. (3 points) 

Postsecondary enrollment 

(§ 645.32(e)(2)(iv)) 

Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to the participants who 

completed their Veterans Upward 

Bound educational program and 

enrolled in an institution of higher 

education within the time period 

specified in the approved objective. (3 

points) 

Postsecondary completion 

(§ 645.32(e)(2)(v)) 

Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to postsecondary enrollees who 

completed a program of postsecondary 

education within the number of years 

specified in the approved objective. (3 

points) 

What are allowable costs? (§ 645.40) 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that § 645.40(i) be changed to 

permit a grantee to pay tuition costs for 

up to six credit hours of postsecondary 

courses in an academic year or summer 

session for a student if tuition waivers 

are unavailable. These commenters 

argued that such a change would 

encourage dual enrollment for UB 

students still in high school. Current 

regulations permit the payment of 

tuition for postsecondary credit only for 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65745 

participants of the UB summer bridge 

component. The commenters noted that 

this change is especially necessary if the 

target schools served by the UB program 

do not provide a rigorous course of 

study. Commenters suggested that 

because UB projects, like TS projects, 

will be evaluated on the extent to which 

participants complete a rigorous 

secondary school program of study, UB 

projects should be allowed to pay for 

tuition, when needed, for secondary 

students taking a rigorous curriculum. 

In addition, commenters suggested 

adding the phrase ‘‘service agreement’’ 

after the word ‘‘lease’’ in proposed 

§ 645.40(n) and (o) because many 

technology systems may require repairs 

and software packages that are provided 

pursuant to service agreements. 

Finally, one commenter 

recommended revising § 645.40(i) that 

permits UB projects to pay tuition costs 

for postsecondary credit courses for 

participants in the summer bridge 

program by striking the phrase ‘‘at the 

host institution’’ and adding 

‘‘educational supplies for participants’’ 

to this provision. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that UB projects should be permitted to 

pay tuition costs, in certain situations, 

for participants taking a rigorous 

secondary school program of study, but 

does not agree that all dual enrollment 

courses should be considered part of a 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study. In addition, the Department 

agrees to add payment for a service 

agreement to the allowable costs. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

recommendations to remove the phrase 

‘‘at the host institution’’ from 

§ 645.40(i)). Students participating in 

the summer bridge program are still UB 

participants; therefore, we believe the 

UB project will continue to provide 

services to these students while they are 

taking postsecondary courses during the 

summer bridge program. Therefore, we 

believe these UB bridge participants 

should take courses at the host 

institution where the project can 

provide additional support services. The 

costs for required textbooks and lab fees 

for bridge students taking postsecondary 

courses are allowable. 

Changes: We have amended proposed 

§ 645.40(n) and (o) to add the cost of an 

equipment service agreement as an 

allowable cost. We also have amended 

§ 643.40 by adding a new paragraph (q) 

to allow UB projects to pay, under 

certain conditions, the tuition for 

courses that will allow project 

participants to complete a rigorous 

secondary school program of study. 

What are Upward Bound stipends? 

(§ 645.42) 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that the $40 stipend that may 

be paid to participants be increased to 

$60. One commenter suggested 

increasing the $60 stipend, which is 

available during the summer school 

recess, to $80. The commenter also 

recommended that work-study positions 

be made available year-round and that 

a participant should be able to get the 

$300 stipend for any three months 

during the year. The commenter argued 

that these changes would increase 

participation in the work-study 

component and thereby increase 

program retention and persistence. 

Discussion: Section 402C(f) of the 

HEA provides that youth participating 

in a UB project may be paid stipends 

not in excess of $60 per month during 

the summer school recess, for a period 

not to exceed three months. During the 

remaining months, youth participating 

in the project may receive stipends not 

in excess of $40. The HEA does not 

limit work-study to the summer school 

recess; it only stipulates that the stipend 

of $300 per month for youth 

participating in a work-study position 

may only be provided during the 

months of June, July, and August. We 

cannot include in these regulations 

changes that would alter the stipend 

dollar amount or timing of payment as 

provided in the HEA. 

Changes: None. 

What other requirements must a 

grantee meet? (§ 645.43) 

Number of Participants (§ 645.43(a)) 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: As discussed in the 

preamble discussion on the number of 

participants under the TS program, we 

believe it is appropriate for the 

Secretary to identify the minimum and 

maximum grant award amounts and the 

minimum number of participants a 

project must serve each year of the grant 

cycle in the Federal Register notice 

inviting applications for a competition. 

We believe this is true for UB projects 

(along with EOC, SSS and McNair 

projects) as well. This practice will give 

the Department the flexibility to 

establish the minimum number of 

participants to be served based on the 

available resources and other priorities 

for each competition and to adjust these 

numbers for subsequent competitions 

based on our experience, changing 

priorities, and cost analyses. 

Changes: We have revised § 645.43(a) 

to clarify that a grantee must serve at 

least the number of participants that the 

Secretary identifies in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications for 

the competition, and to state that 

through this notice, the Secretary 

provides the minimum and maximum 

grant award amounts for the 

competition. 

Project Director (Final § 645.43(b)(3)) 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: For the reasons discussed 

in the section of this preamble on 

Project Director under the TS program 

(proposed § 643.32(c)(3), final 

§ 643.32(d)(3)), we have revised 

proposed § 645.43(a)(3) (final 

§ 645.43(b)(3)). 

Changes: We have revised proposed 

§ 645.43(a)(3) (final § 645.43(b)(3)) to 

clarify the standard the Secretary will 

use to consider requests for a waiver of 

the restriction on the number of 

programs a project director may 

administer. 

Coordination Among Outreach 

Programs Serving Similar Populations 

(New § 645.43(c)(5)) 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: For the reasons discussed 

under Coordination Among Outreach 

Programs Serving Similar Populations 

(§§ 645.21(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(3)), we 

have added language to § 645.43 (What 

other requirements must a grantee 

meet?) to require UB grantees to 

maintain, to the extent practicable, a 

record of the services UB participants 

received during the project period from 

another TRIO program or other program 

serving the same populations as the UB 

program. We believe that these changes, 

which we have made across the TRIO 

programs, will help ensure that the 

limited funds available under TRIO and 

other programs for disadvantaged 

students are used effectively and 

efficiently by minimizing the 

duplication of services through 

coordination of activities. 

Changes: We have added new 

§ 645.43(c)(5) to require UB grantees to 

maintain, to the extent practicable, a 

record of any services UB participants 

receive during the project year from 

other Federal TRIO or federally funded 

programs serving the same populations 

as the UB program. 

Student Support Services (SSS) (34 CFR 

Part 646) 

What is the Student Support Services 

program? (§ 646.1) 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the proposed 

reference to ‘‘college’’ in paragraph (a) be 

replaced by a reference to 

‘‘postsecondary educational institution.’’ 

In addition, multiple commenters asked 

that the Department retain the current 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65746 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

references to low-income and firstgeneration students to highlight the 

target population of the SSS Program. 

These commenters asked that we not 

include the reference to ‘‘groups that are 

traditionally underrepresented in 

postsecondary education,’’ as reflected 

in proposed § 646.1(c) as this reference 

could dilute the focus of the program. 

Discussion: The language in § 646.1 

has been changed to more closely track 

the language in section 402D(a) of the 

HEA. This statutory language 

appropriately reflects the focus of this 

program; for this reason, we do not 

believe any changes to this regulatory 

provision are necessary. 

Changes: None. 

What activities and services does a 

project provide? Required Services 

(§ 646.4(a)) 

Comment: Six commenters requested 

minor changes to the SSS list of 

required services in § 646.4(a) to specify 

who should provide the services. For 

example, one commenter noted that 

assistance in completing financial aid 

applications could be provided by SSS 

advisors directly or in collaboration 

with staff in the financial aid office. 

Several commenters requested 

additional language specifying that 

graduate and professional school 

enrollment is an activity specific to 

four-year institutions. Two commenters 

requested that we change the language 

in proposed § 646.4(a)(5) and (a)(6) from 

‘‘obtaining financial assistance for 

enrollment in’’ to ‘‘applying for financial 

aid.’’ Two other commenters asked that 

we add specific language to this section 

to clarify that support for financial aid 

assistance and postsecondary course 

counseling could be given directly by 

TRIO professionals or through other 

services with the assistance of other 

offices as part of other services they 

provide. 

Discussion: We recognize that SSS 

projects may work with other offices 

and programs at the institution to 

provide the required services. However, 

we do not think it is necessary to 

regulate who specifically must provide 

the services or how those services must 

be provided. An applicant for a SSS 

grant must include its plan to provide 

services that address the goals and 

objectives of the project in the Plan of 

Operation section of its application (see 

§ 646.21(c)(4)). 

To clarify that graduate and 

professional school enrollment is an 

activity specific to four-year 

institutions, we have added language to 

§ 646.4(a)(5) that refers to participants 

enrolled in four-year institutions of 

higher education. This language will 

parallel the structure in paragraph (a)(6), 

which refers specifically to students 

enrolled in two-year institutions of 

higher education. 

We decline to revise this section to 

focus only on helping students with 

‘‘applying for financial aid,’’ as 

requested by some commenters. The 

language in this section mirrors section 

402D(b)(5) and (b)(6) of the HEA. In 

addition, although applying for 

financial aid may be the most important 

step in assisting a student in obtaining 

financial aid, the student may require 

assistance after the student submits his 

or her financial aid application; such 

assistance could include helping the 

student understand or accept a financial 

aid award. Therefore, we think it is 

important to retain the proposed 

regulatory language, which is broader 

and covers helping students in 

obtaining financial aid, because it 

encourages SSS grantees to continue 

assisting students throughout the entire 

financial aid process. 

Changes: We have revised 

§ 646.4(a)(5) to refer to activities 

designed to assist participants enrolled 

in four-year institutions of higher 

education in applying for admission to, 

and obtaining financial assistance for 

enrollment in, graduate and professional 

programs. 

Permissible Services (§ 646.4(b)) 

Comment: Many commenters 

requested that we revise § 646.4(b) to 

clarify that grantees may provide 

additional activities that are not 

included in the list of permissible 

services in the HEA, provided that such 

activities assist grantees to meet the 

goals of the SSS program. These 

commenters expressed concern that, 

without such regulatory language, SSS 

projects could not offer these additional 

activities. 

Discussion: Section 646.4(b) 

incorporates language from section 

402D(c) of the HEA, which lists 

permissible services a SSS project may 

provide. The regulations do not prohibit 

grantees from offering additional 

services to meet the goals of the 

program, and grantees may offer 

additional services not explicitly listed 

as required or permissible. We have 

revised § 646.4(b) to reflect that intent 

more clearly. 

Changes: We have revised § 646.4 by 

adding a new paragraph (b)(7) to 

specifically state that SSS projects 

provide other services that are 

consistent with the purposes and goals 

of the SSS program. 

What definitions apply? First 

Generation College Student (§ 646.7(b)) 

Comment: Commenters asked 

whether a student whose parent has a 

baccalaureate degree from a country 

other than the United States meets the 

definition of first generation college 

student in § 646.7(b). The commenters 

noted that other countries may have 

different requirements for a 

baccalaureate degree that may not be 

equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate 

degree. In addition, these commenters 

expressed concern that individuals who 

received their degrees in another 

country may be unable to assist their 

children with college entry and 

financial aid requirements for U.S. 

institutions of higher education, and 

that the SSS project could address this 

problem. 

Discussion: Under the TRIO Programs, 

the definition of first-generation college 

student is used to determine if an 

individual is eligible to participate in a 

TRIO project, the purpose of which is to 

identify individuals from families in 

which there is no family history of 

successfully pursuing a bachelor’s 

degree. For individuals whose parents 

earned a bachelor’s degree in another 

country, there is a family history of 

success in higher education, regardless 

of whether the requirements to receive 

the baccalaureate degree were different 

than those in the United States. For this 

reason, we do not believe that a student 

who has a parent with a baccalaureate 

degree from outside the United States 

should be eligible to participate in the 

SSS program. 

Changes: None. 

What definitions apply? Low-Income 

Individual (§ 646.7(b)) 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification as to what years’ tax 

documents should be used to determine 

whether a student meets the definition 

of the term low-income individual under 

§ 646.7(b). The commenter suggested 

that the Department provide a chart to 

assist grantees in finding the 

information needed for them to 

determine an individual’s low-income 

status. The commenter stated that doing 

so would help avoid confusion that 

occurs when the tax and calendar years 

do not match up with the academic 

year. 

Discussion: To document low-income 

status, tax documents from the calendar 

year preceding the academic year in 

which the student will begin to receive 

services should be used. For example, 

students who initially participate in a 

SSS project in the 2009–2010 academic 

year will have their low-income status 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65747 

determined by using tax documents 

submitted to the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) for calendar year 2008. 

Also, the Department annually posts, on 

the TRIO Web site, a chart on Annual 

Income Levels for use by grantees in 

determining student eligibility. A 

grantee is only required to verify a 

student’s low-income status prior to 

providing the first service to that 

student. 

Changes: None. 

What assurances and other information 

must an applicant include in an 

application? SSS coordination with 

other projects (§ 646.11) 

Comment: Some commenters 

recommended that the SSS regulations 

require an applicant to provide an 

assurance that individuals receiving 

services from another SSS project will 

not receive the same services under the 

applicant’s proposed project. The 

commenters argued that such an 

assurance would allow projects to serve 

more participants and, especially in 

light of the addition of new types of SSS 

projects, would prevent SSS projects on 

the same campus from serving the same 

students, and, therefore, fewer students 

overall. Furthermore, the commenters 

noted that the assurance would mirror 

a similar assurance required under the 

regulations for the TS, EOC, and UB 

programs. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters. Current TRIO regulations 

that establish age and academic level 

criteria for participation in each 

program ensure that there is no overlap 

in services between SSS and the precollege TRIO programs, such as regular 

UB. However, it is now possible that a 

single institution could have multiple 

SSS projects and a McNair project. We 

are, therefore, adding language, in 

§ 646.11(c), to address the commenters’ 

concern. This new language, clarifies 

that a student receiving benefits from 

one SSS project is not eligible to receive 

services from another SSS project at any 

one time. Further, under § 646.11(c), the 

SSS project must collaborate with other 

SSS and McNair projects and other State 

and institutional programs at the 

grantee-institution so that more students 

can be served. Under this provision, a 

student may leave one SSS project and 

join another at the same institution, as 

long as the student’s participation in 

each project is only counted for the 

performance period during the time he 

or she is actually receiving services from 

that particular project. 

Changes: We have amended § 646.11 

to include a new paragraph (c) that 

requires an applicant to assure the 

Secretary in the application that a 

student will not be served by more than 

one SSS project at any one time and that 

the SSS project will collaborate with 

other SSS and McNair projects and 

other State and institutional programs at 

the grantee-institution so that more 

students can be served. 

What assurances and other information 

must an applicant include in an 

application? Providing Financial 

Assistance to Participants (§ 646.11(b)) 

Comment: A number of commenters 

requested that the Secretary change 

§ 646.11(b)(1) to eliminate the 

requirement that applicant describe 

their efforts and past history in meeting 

the full financial need of each student 

in the project to requiring an applicant 

to offer each student sufficient financial 

assistance to meet their full financial 

need. The commenters stated that it is 

unreasonable to expect SSS projects to 

have sufficient funding to meet the full 

financial need of each student in the 

project. One commenter recommended 

adding a selection criterion that would 

evaluate the extent to which an 

institution has made efforts to meet the 

financial need of participants and to 

reduce the loan burden on participants. 

Discussion: The language in 

§ 646.11(b) referenced by the 

commenters is from section 402D(e)(6) 

of the HEA and cannot be changed as 

the commenters requested. With respect 

to the second comment, section 402D(e) 

of the HEA requires the Secretary to 

consider the institution’s effort and, 

where applicable, past history in 

providing sufficient financial assistance 

to meet the full financial need of each 

student in the project and in 

maintaining the loan burden of each 

student at a manageable level. Because 

Federal grant aid is often insufficient to 

meet a student’s full financial need, SSS 

students may be offered large amounts 

of loans to meet their financial needs for 

attendance at the grantee institution. 

Under current § 646.21(d)(3) 

(Institutional commitment), the 

Secretary evaluates the extent to which 

the applicant has demonstrated a 

commitment to minimize the 

dependence on student loans in 

developing financial aid packages for 

project participants by committing 

institutional resources, to the extent 

possible. We believe the regulation 

adequately addresses the commenter’s 

concern and that no further changes are 

necessary. 

Changes: None. 

What assurances and other information 

must an applicant include in an 

application? Consultations between SSS 

project and financial aid office in 

awarding of grant aid. 

Comments: Several commenters 

recommended that § 646.30(i) 

(Allowable cost—grant aid) be revised to 

incorporate the statutory language 

regarding the required consultation 

between the SSS project and their 

institution’s financial aid office to 

determine the students who are eligible 

for grant aid and the amount of grant aid 

to be awarded (see section 402D(d)(1) of 

the HEA). The commenters noted that, 

while awarding financial aid is the 

responsibility of the financial aid office, 

the grant aid can only be awarded to 

SSS participants and, therefore, the SSS 

Director should be consulted with 

respect to which students should 

receive the grant aid and the amount of 

the grant aid awards. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters’ concern that the 

regulations should require consultation 

between the SSS project and the 

financial aid office in the awarding of 

grant aid, but believe it would be better 

to include this requirement as an 

assurance in § 646.11, rather than as an 

allowable cost under § 646.30(i). 

Changes: We have amended § 646.11 

to include a new paragraph (d) that 

requires an applicant to assure the 

Secretary in the application that the 

institution’s financial aid office will 

consult with the SSS project with 

respect to which SSS participants 

should receive grant aid and the amount 

of the grant aid awards. 

Certificate or Degree Completion and 

Transfer to a Four-Year Institution 

(§§ 646.21(b)(3)(ii) and 646.22(e)(5)) 

Comment: A number of commenters 

requested that the Department revise the 

evaluation criterion in § 646.21(b)(3)(ii), 

related to the applicant’s proposed 

objectives, that would award up to 2 

points for certificate or degree 

completion and transfer to a four-year 

institution so that the criterion only 

evaluated whether participants transfer 

to four-year institutions. The 

commenters indicated that, in many 

cases, it is in the student’s best interest 

to transfer to a four-year institution 

prior to receiving a certificate or degree 

from the two-year institution. 

One commenter stated that it would 

not be feasible for an applicant to collect 

data on transfers to four-year 

institutions or graduate and professional 

school enrollment because by the time 

this data can be collected, the student 

has left the institution and may have 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65748 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

severed ties with the school. One 

commenter asked for clarification on 

whether retention in postsecondary 

education for purposes of the selection 

criteria means retention at the grantee 

institution or in any institution of 

higher education. 

Discussion: Sections 646.21(b)(3)(ii) 

and 646.22(e)(5) are based on statutory 

language from section 

402A(f)(3)(C)(ii)(II) of the HEA. Section 

402A(f)(3)(C)(ii)(II) of the HEA 

specifically includes, as outcome 

criteria, both certificate or degree 

completion and transfer to a four-year 

institution prior to receiving a certificate 

or degree from the two-year institution. 

For this reason, we cannot make the 

change requested by the commenters. 

With regard to the retention objective 

(see § 646.22(e)(2) and (e)(3)), a grantee 

is only required to report on 

participants served during the project 

year who: (1) Graduate from the grantee 

institution during the project year; (2) 

transfer from a two-year to a four-year 

institution during the project year; or 

persist at the grantee institution into the 

fall term of the next academic year. 

With regard to the good standing 

objective (see § 646.22(e)(3)), a grantee is 

only required to report on participants 

served during the project year. 

Changes: We have revised 

§ 646.22(e)(2) to clarify that the 

Secretary evaluates the applicant’s 

retention and good standing objectives 

based on participants served during the 

project year. We have also revised 

§ 646.22(e)(4) and (e)(5) (degree 

completion) to clarify that the objectives 

include current and prior year 

participants who are still enrolled at the 

grantee institution. In addition, for 

consistency with the regulatory 

language used for the PE criteria in the 

other TRIO programs, we have removed 

the words ‘‘the percentage of’’ from 

§ 646.22(e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4), and (e)(5). 

What are allowable costs? (§ 646.30) 

Comment: Six commenters requested 

that we specify that a SSS project may 

pay for lodging and meals for 

participants and staff participating in 

project-sponsored educational and 

cultural activities. One commenter 

noted that adding this language to 

§ 646.30(e), for example, would allow 

SSS participants to participate in State 

and regional leadership conferences, 

which are held over the weekend and 

require overnight lodging. The 

commenter also noted that for projects 

in rural or remote locations many 

educational and cultural activities 

require overnight lodging. 

Discussion: The Secretary 

acknowledges that participation in some 

educational and cultural activities may 

require overnight travel (e.g., State or 

regional leadership conferences). 

However, we also believe that the use of 

project funds for these activities must be 

limited to ensure that sufficient project 

funds are available to provide academic 

support services. Therefore, the 

Secretary will require a project to obtain 

prior approval for educational and 

cultural trips that require overnight 

travel. 

Changes: We have revised § 646.30(e) 

to include, as an allowable cost, 

transportation and, with prior approval 

of the Secretary, meals and lodging for 

participants and staff during approved 

educational and cultural activities 

sponsored by the project. 

Comment: Many commenters 

requested the removal of the four 

percent cap on the amount a project 

may spend on professional development 

travel under § 646.30(g). The 

commenters stated that this cap is 

inconsistent with other TRIO programs, 

which do not have a professional 

development cap. 

Discussion: The Secretary does not 

agree with the commenter’s suggestion. 

This provision provides grantees with 

clear parameters regarding the 

percentage of project funds we believe 

are sufficient for professional 

development travel for staff. In addition, 

in unusual situations, a grantee may ask 

the Secretary to approve a higher 

percentage to address unique 

circumstances (e.g., high cost of travel 

in some areas, new staff that could 

benefit from more professional 

development). We acknowledge that 

this limitation is not included in the 

regulations for the other TRIO programs. 

However, we do not believe it is 

appropriate to add this provision to the 

other program regulations at this time 

because the NPRM did not suggest we 

were considering applying this 

restriction to all of the programs. 

Nonetheless, we encourage all TRIO 

projects to limit the amount of funds 

spent on professional development 

travel to no more than four percent of 

staff salaries and may consider 

proposing a provision like this for the 

regulations for the other TRIO programs 

at a later date. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

adding the phrase ‘‘service agreement’’ 

after the word ‘‘lease’’ in § 646.30(f), 

because many technology systems may 

require repairs and software packages 

and those repairs and software packages 

may be made available through service 

agreements. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

suggestion to include service 

agreements as an allowable cost in 

§ 646.30(f). 

Changes: We have revised § 646.30(f) 

to include service agreements for 

equipment. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we add a new paragraph (k) to 

§ 646.30 to include as an allowable cost 

admission application fees for project 

participants who complete a certificate 

or degree before continuing to another 

higher education institution if the 

certain conditions exist. The commenter 

noted that such language would be 

consistent with the regulations for the 

TS program, which, like SSS, aims to 

assist students in securing admission to 

the next level of academic study. 

Discussion: We disagree with the 

commenter’s recommendation. Unlike 

the participants in the TS program, SSS 

participants are enrolled in 

postsecondary programs and are eligible 

to receive financial aid to cover their 

cost of attendance at the institution. 

Further, this recommendation is 

inconsistent with § 646.31(b) 

(Unallowable costs), which prohibits the 

use of grant funds for tuition, fees, 

stipends, and other forms of direct 

financial support, except for grant aid 

under § 646.30(i), for staff or 

participants. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

that the Department clarify the use of 

funds allowed under § 646.30(i). In 

particular, the commenters asked 

whether awarding rant aid to students 

who are in their first two years of 

postsecondary education means 

students who are in their first two 

academic years, or students in their 

freshman and sophomore years, based 

on credits hours earned. 

Discussion: The reference to the first 

two years of postsecondary education in 

section 402D(d)(2) of the HEA refers to 

the student’s first two years of 

postsecondary education attendance, 

not the student’s grade level 

classification (e.g., freshman or 

sophomore). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

requested that we define the term 

‘‘breaks,’’ used in § 646.30(j). Under that 

section, paying for temporary housing 

during breaks in the academic year, for 

students who are homeless children and 

youths or were formerly homeless 

children and youths and students who 

are foster care youth, is considered an 

allowable cost. Some commenters were 

confused as to whether the term 

‘‘breaks’’ includes only holiday breaks 

between semesters, or if the term also 

includes the entire summer semester. 

One individual requested that 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65749 

disconnected youth be included in this 

paragraph as well. The commenters also 

asked that the Department clarify that 

homeless adult SSS participants, who 

are not formerly homeless youth, are 

eligible for temporary housing support. 

Specifically, these commenters 

recommended that § 646.30(j) be revised 

to include, in addition to students who 

are homeless children and youth or 

were formally homeless children and 

youth and students who are foster care 

youth, any SSS participant who is 

considered homeless. 

Discussion: Section 402D(c)(5) of the 

HEA allows SSS projects to use grant 

funds to secure temporary housing 

during breaks in the academic year. The 

term ‘‘breaks’’ in the academic year 

means any period of time between 

semesters or quarters within the same 

academic year but does not typically 

include the normal summer break 

between academic years. However, if 

the participant is enrolled for the 

summer term, ‘‘breaks’’ would include 

the period of time between the spring 

and summer terms and between the 

summer and fall terms. 

The Secretary does not agree with the 

recommendation to add disconnected 

youth or homeless adult SSS 

participants, who are not formerly 

homeless youth to § 646.30(j), as this 

would go beyond the statutory intent, 

which specifically references the 

definitions in the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act. Further, the 

Secretary does not believe that SSS 

projects will have sufficient funds to 

provide temporary housing assistance 

for many participants and provide the 

academic support services required 

under § 646.4. Therefore, the Secretary 

does not believe it is in the best interest 

of the program to expand the 

populations eligible for temporary 

housing assistance; instead the 

Secretary encourages SSS project to 

collaborate with other programs at the 

institution or within the community to 

meet the housing needs of eligible 

participants. 

Changes: None. 

What other requirements must a 

grantee meet? (§ 646.32) 

Number of Participants (new 

§ 646.32(a)) 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: As discussed in the 

preamble discussion regarding the 

number of participants under the TS 

program, we believe it is appropriate for 

the Secretary to identify the minimum 

and maximum grant award amounts and 

the minimum number of participants 

that TRIO projects, including SSS 

projects, must serve each year of the 

grant cycle in the Federal Register 

notice inviting applications for a 

competition. This practice will give the 

Department the flexibility to establish 

the minimum number of participants to 

be served based on the available 

resources and other priorities for each 

competition and to adjust these 

numbers for subsequent competitions 

based on our experience, changing 

priorities, and cost analyses. 

Changes: We have revised § 646.32 by 

redesignating current paragraphs (a) 

through (d) as paragraphs (b) through (e) 

and adding a new paragraph (a). New 

paragraph (a) clarifies that a grantee 

must serve at least the number of 

participants that the Secretary identifies 

in the application notice for the 

competition, and states that through this 

notice, the Secretary provides the 

minimum and maximum grant award 

amounts for the competition. 

Coordination of Services (new 

paragraph § 646.32(c)(5)). 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Based on comments we 

received on proposed § 643.11(b) for the 

Talent Search program—(Coordination 

Among Outreach Programs Serving 

Similar Populations), we have added a 

provision regarding the coordination of 

efforts necessary for students served by 

more than one Federal TRIO or other 

federally funded program to the 

additional requirements a grantee must 

meet under § 646.32(c)(5). Accordingly, 

§ 646.32(c)(5) now requires the SSS 

grantee to maintain, to the extent 

practicable, a record of any services SSS 

participants receive during the project 

year from another Federal TRIO 

program or other federally funded 

programs serving similar populations. 

This change will help ensure that the 

limited funds available under TRIO and 

other programs for disadvantaged 

students are used effectively and 

efficiently by minimizing the 

duplication of services through 

coordination of activities. 

Change: A new § 646.32(c)(5) has 

been added to require grantees to 

maintain, to the extent practicable, a 

record of any services SSS participants 

receive during the project year by other 

Federal TRIO or federally funded 

programs that serve similar populations. 

Project Director (proposed § 646.32(c); 

final § 646.32(d)) 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: For the reasons discussed 

in the preamble section on Project 

Director under the TS program 

(proposed § 643.32(c)(3), final 

§ 643.32(d)(3)), we have revised 

proposed § 646.32(c) (final § 646.32(d)). 

Changes: We have revised proposed 

§ 646.32(c) (final § 646.32(d)) to clarify 

the standard the Secretary will use to 

consider requests for a waiver of the 

restriction on the number of programs a 

project director may administer. 

Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate 

Achievement (McNair) Program (34 

CFR part 647) 

What activities and services does a 

project provide? (§ 647.4) 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested a variety of changes to 

§ 647.4. First, commenters 

recommended that the Department 

explicitly permit grantees to use grant 

funds for other activities or services that 

meet the goals of the program, to make 

it clear that grantees may go beyond the 

scope of the activities listed in the 

regulations. In addition, a number of 

commenters contended that tutoring 

should be moved from a required 

activity under § 647.4(a) to a permissible 

activity under § 647.4(b); these 

commenters argued that most McNair 

Scholars will not require tutoring. The 

commenters further suggested that the 

regulations should specify that tutoring 

may be offered directly or by referral, as 

needed, and also that tutoring may 

include peer tutoring, in addition to 

tutoring by a graduate student or other 

professional. 

Finally, a few commenters requested 

clarification of the requirement that a 

McNair grantee provide summer 

internships for students. The 

commenters asked whether the 

internship must specifically be a 

research internship, be distinct from any 

other internship required for the 

completion of a degree or certificate, 

and whether the internship must be 

distinct from the research or other 

scholarly activities required under 

§ 647.4(a). 

Discussion: Section 647.4(b) 

incorporates section 402E(c) of the HEA, 

which lists permissible services a 

McNair project may provide. The 

regulations do not prohibit grantees 

from offering additional services to meet 

the goals of the program, and grantees 

may offer additional services not 

explicitly mentioned as required or 

permissible. We have revised § 647.4(b) 

to reflect that intent more clearly. 

With regard to the comments 

concerning tutoring, we note that, under 

section 402E(b)(4) of the HEA, tutoring 

is a required service in the McNair 

program. However, a grantee may offer 

tutoring itself, or through linkages with 

other offices at an institution or another 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65750 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

entity. While grantees must make 

tutoring available, individual 

participants may choose whether or not 

to take advantage of this service. 

Finally, one of the required services 

that a McNair grantee must provide are 

summer internships that advance the 

purpose of the McNair program, to 

prepare disadvantaged college students 

for doctoral study (see section 

402E(b)(2) of the HEA). Internships do 

not necessarily have to involve research, 

but must assist students in preparing for 

doctoral work. There is no requirement 

that the summer internships be in 

addition to internships that may be 

required to complete a degree. However, 

internships are a separate and unique 

activity (see section 402E(b)(2) of the 

HEA) offered by a McNair grantee and 

may not also be counted as an 

opportunity for research or other 

scholarly activities (see section 

402E(b)(1) of the HEA). The HEA clearly 

separates these two required activities 

and McNair programs must offer both. 

Changes: We have revised § 647.4(b) 

by adding a new paragraph (b)(4) that 

would allow a McNair grantee to 

provide other services that are 

consistent with the purposes and goals 

of the McNair program. 

What Definitions Apply? (§ 647.7) 

Definition of Low-income 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification of the definition of the term 

low-income individuals in § 647.7. The 

commenter recommended that the 

Department provide a chart or other 

language that clarifies the income levels 

that should be used in making this 

determination, and also that a project 

should use the same chart throughout 

an entire grant cycle. 

Discussion: We did not propose any 

changes to the definition of low-income 

individual in the NPRM. However, the 

commenter does not appear to be 

requesting a change to this definition. 

Rather, the commenter seems to be 

seeking additional information on how 

to determine whether an individual 

meets this definition. To document lowincome status, tax documents for the 

calendar year preceding the academic 

year in which the student will begin to 

receive services should be used. For 

example, students who initially 

participate in a McNair project in 2009– 

2010 academic year will have their lowincome status determined by using tax 

documents submitted to the IRS for 

calendar year 2008. Also, the 

Department annually posts, on the TRIO 

Web site, a chart on Annual Income 

Levels for use by grantees in 

determining student eligibility. A 

grantee is only required to verify a 

student’s low-income status prior to 

providing the first service to that 

student. 

Changes: None. 

Definition of Research or Scholarly 

Activity 

Comment: Many commenters stated 

that the definition of research or 

scholarly activity in § 647.7 should be 

expanded to include examples such as 

developing a research proposal, 

implementing reporting, presenting and 

publishing research, and attendance at 

professional conferences. They argued 

that adding these activities as examples 

in the definition would clarify that 

‘‘research’’ encompasses a range of 

scholarly activities that are more 

rigorous than typically available to 

undergraduates in a classroom setting. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

with the commenters that ‘‘research’’ 

may include a wide variety of scholarly 

activities, and we intend for the defined 

term research or scholarly activity to 

include activities such as those 

mentioned by the commenter. These 

examples are appropriate parts of a 

doctoral program and accordingly, 

could satisfy the requirement for 

research or scholarly activity under the 

McNair program. However, because 

there are so many examples of activities 

that could be covered in this definition, 

we are not including any examples in 

the regulations, but may include them 

in non-regulatory guidance. 

Changes: None. 

What assurances must an applicant 

submit? McNair coordination with 

other projects (newly redesignated 

§ 647.11) 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Based on comments we 

received regarding coordination of 

services for other TRIO Programs (see 

the TS, EOC, UB, and SSS discussions 

in this preamble), we believe it is also 

necessary to add a new paragraph (d) to 

the McNair assurances in newly 

redesignated § 647.11 to clarify that a 

student receiving benefits from a 

McNair project is not eligible to receive 

services from another McNair project at 

any one time. Further, we believe that 

it is appropriate to require each McNair 

project to provide an assurance it will 

collaborate with other McNair and SSS 

projects and other State and 

institutional programs at the granteeinstitution, including those supporting 

undergraduate research, so that more 

students can be served. This change will 

allow McNair projects to serve more 

participants and reduce duplication of 

services, and it mirrors a similar 

assurance under the regulations for the 

TS, EOC, UB, and SSS programs. 

Furthermore, it is consistent with 

current TRIO regulations that establish 

age and academic level criteria for 

participation in each program to 

minimize overlap in services among 

programs. 

Changes: We have amended newly 

redesignated § 647.11 to include a new 

paragraph (d) that requires an applicant 

to submit as part of its application, 

assurances that a student will not be 

served by more than one McNair project 

at any one time and that the McNair 

project will collaborate with other 

McNair and SSS projects and other State 

and institutional programs at the 

grantee-institution, including those 

supporting undergraduate research, so 

that more students can be served. 

What selection criteria does the 

Secretary use? (§ 647.21(b)) 

Comment: We received a number of 

comments on the selection criteria 

proposed for the McNair program. First, 

many commenters suggested that we 

add ‘‘or scholarly activity’’ after the word 

‘‘research’’ in proposed § 647.21 to 

maintain consistency with the activities 

and services a McNair project must 

provide. 

Second, multiple commenters stated 

that the emphasis on Bachelor of Arts/ 

Bachelor of Sciences degree attainment 

should not be lost with the added focus 

on graduate degree enrollment and 

attainment. These commenters 

recommended that the regulations for 

this program retain attainment of 

undergraduate degrees in the selection 

criteria; they suggested that we alter the 

point distribution to show that both this 

goal and the newly added criteria of 

success in helping students to enroll in 

and continue enrollment in graduate 

study are critical elements to the 

program. 

Third, many commenters expressed 

concern about the new selection criteria 

that relate to continued enrollment in 

graduate study and doctoral degree 

attainment. These commenters 

suggested removing one or both of these 

criteria for a variety of reasons. Some 

expressed concern that the criteria were 

unclear, while others argued that these 

criteria should be removed from the 

regulations because, rather than 

applying to current scholars, these 

criteria apply to program alumni, on 

whom programs may not spend funds 

and over whom they have no control. 

Discussion: First, with respect to the 

suggestion that we add the words ‘‘or 

scholarly activity’’ after the word 

‘‘research’’ in § 647.21, we agree that this 

change is appropriate to ensure 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65751 

consistency across the regulations for 

this program. For this reason, we are 

making this change. 

Second, with regard to the comments 

concerning the appropriateness of 

focusing on Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of 

Science degrees, we note that the HEOA 

made changes to the McNair program to 

better align the outcome criteria with 

the explicit goal of preparing students 

for success in graduate programs leading 

to doctoral degrees, including continued 

enrollment in graduate school and 

doctoral degree attainment. In doing so, 

Congress did not use the same criteria 

as in the current regulations (e.g., 

attainment of a baccalaureate degree); 

therefore, we have used the statutory 

criteria. We have also decided not to 

change the point distribution related to 

these selection criteria, as we have 

determined that the proposed points 

correctly reflect the statutory goals of 

the program. 

Third, the regulations that include the 

new selection criteria that relate to 

continued enrollment in graduate study 

and doctoral degree attainment 

appropriately reflect the statute. Section 

402A(f)(3)(D)(iv) of the HEA, as 

amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 

HEOA, requires the Department to use 

the attainment of doctoral degrees by 

former participants in evaluating the 

quality and effectiveness of a McNair 

project. 

Changes: We have amended 

§ 647.21(b)(1) to add the words ‘‘or 

scholarly activity’’ after the word 

‘‘research’’. 

How does the Secretary evaluate prior 

experience? (§ 647.22) 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

expressed concern about the proposed 

point distribution for evaluating prior 

experience in making awards for the 

McNair program. Multiple commenters 

expressed concern that the points are 

weighted too heavily on graduate school 

enrollment and continued enrollment in 

graduate school through doctoral degree 

attainment. These commenters argued 

that it does not make sense to give so 

many points and emphasis to areas over 

which a grantee has little control, as the 

points would be based on alumni 

participants instead of current scholars. 

Further, the commenters stated that the 

difficulties and costs in tracking 

students for these criteria merit 

awarding a lower point value for them. 

One commenter requested that the 

language in § 647.22(e)(3) through (e)(5) 

be clarified to ensure that current 

McNair participants are not counted in 

the calculation of prior experience 

because those individuals would not 

have been able to participate in graduate 

educational opportunities at that point 

in their academic careers. Multiple 

commenters requested that the 

regulations reflect a reapportionment of 

the PE points to focus more on the 

direct contact, activities, and time that 

the project spends with current 

applicants, rather than focusing on the 

success of students who are no longer 

current McNair participants. The 

commenters contended that it was 

unfair to place so much emphasis on the 

graduate success of a student, when 

grantees are not allowed to provide 

services to those students. 

Other commenters requested that the 

Department clarify what is meant by the 

term ‘‘doctoral level degree’’ for 

purposes of calculating PE points. They 

urged the Department to consider other 

degrees besides a doctor of philosophy 

(Ph.D.) as a doctoral level degree; for 

instance, they argued that a doctor of 

education (ED.D), doctor of psychology 

(Psy.D), or doctor of social work 

(D.S.W.) should be considered a 

doctoral level degree. Further, one 

commenter suggested that, instead of 

requiring a doctoral level degree, the 

regulations should use the terminal 

degree in the field in which the degree 

is sought, arguing, for example, that a 

master of fine arts degree is the highest 

degree available for that particular field. 

Finally, a few commenters suggested 

some changes to the regulatory language 

to clarify various provisions. 

Specifically, commenters recommended 

changing ‘‘research and scholarly 

activities’’ in proposed § 647.22(e)(2) to 

‘‘research or scholarly activities’’ to 

maintain consistency with other 

sections in these regulations. Further, 

one commenter recommended adding 

the word ‘‘current’’ before the word 

‘‘participants’’ in § 647.22(e)(1) through 

(e)(5). 

Discussion: We disagree with the 

commenters’ suggestions about 

redistributing the PE points among the 

criteria. Most (sixty percent) of the PE 

points are awarded based on the 

expected outcomes for participants 

served during the project year (see 

§ 647.22(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3)). The 

remaining points (6 out of a possible 15 

points) are awarded based on the extent 

to which prior participants are moving 

toward achieving the main goal of the 

McNair program, which is attainment of 

doctoral degrees (see the program 

outcome criteria in section 402A(f)(3)(D) 

of the HEA). 

With regard to the comments 

requesting clarification of what is 

considered a doctoral level degree, the 

Department agrees that this term is not 

limited to a doctor of philosophy. Other 

research intensive doctoral degrees, 

such as a doctor of education (Ed.D.), a 

doctor of psychology (Psy.D.), and a 

doctor of social work (D.S.W.) are 

appropriate to the goals of the program. 

However, the purpose of the McNair 

program is to encourage research at the 

doctoral level, and we, therefore, 

disagree with the suggestion that using 

the terminal degree in the field is 

sufficient. 

Because the Department agrees with 

the commenters that changing the 

reference to ‘‘research and scholarly 

activities’’ in § 647.22(e)(2) to ‘‘research 

or scholarly activities’’ will ensure 

greater consistency across sections, we 

will make this change. Finally, we agree 

that we should clarify that the criteria 

in § 647.22(e)(2) and (e)(3) apply to 

‘‘current participants’’; however, instead 

of using the phrase ‘‘current year’’ we 

have decided to add the words ‘‘served 

during the project year’’ after the word 

‘‘participants.’’ However, § 647.22(e)(4) 

and (e)(5) relates to prior participants, 

and we will not be making any change 

to these paragraphs. 

Changes: We have amended 

§ 647.22(e)(2) to change the reference 

from ‘‘research and scholarly activities’’ 

to ‘‘research or scholarly activities’’. We 

have also amended § 647.22(e)(2) and 

(e)(3) by adding ‘‘served during the 

project year’’ after the word 

‘‘participants.’’ 

What are allowable costs? (§ 647.30) 

Comments: Two commenters 

suggested adding the phrase ‘‘service 

agreement’’ after the word ‘‘lease’’ in 

§ 647.30(d), because many technology 

systems may require repairs and 

software packages that are made 

pursuant to service agreements. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters who recommended that we 

include service agreements as an 

allowable cost in § 647.30(d) and have 

revised the regulations accordingly. 

Changes: We have revised § 647.30(d) 

to include to include service agreements 

for equipment. 

What other requirements must a 

grantee meet? (§ 647.32) 

Number of Participants (new 

§ 647.32(a)) 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: As discussed in the 

preamble discussion regarding number 

of participants under the TS program, 

we believe it is appropriate for the 

Secretary to identify the minimum and 

maximum grant award amounts and the 

minimum number of participants TRIO 

projects, including McNair projects, 

must serve each year of the grant cycle 

in the Federal Register notice inviting 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65752 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

applications for a competition. This 

practice will give the Department the 

flexibility to establish the number of 

participants to be served based on the 

available resources and other priorities 

for each competition and to adjust these 

numbers for subsequent competitions 

based on our experience, changing 

priorities, and cost analyses. 

Change: We have revised § 647.32 by 

redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), (c), 

and (d) as paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and 

(e), respectively and adding a new 

paragraph (a). New paragraph (a) 

clarifies that a grantee must serve at 

least the number of participants that the 

Secretary identifies in the application 

notice for the competition, and states 

that through this notice, the Secretary 

provides the minimum and maximum 

grant award amounts for the 

competition. 

Coordination of Services (new 

§ 647.32(c)(5)) 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Based on comments we 

received on proposed § 643.11(b) for the 

Talent Search program—(Coordination 

Among Outreach Programs Serving 

Similar Populations), we have added a 

provision regarding the coordination of 

efforts necessary for students served by 

more than one Federal TRIO or other 

federally funded program to the 

additional requirements a grantee must 

meet under § 647.32(c)(5). We have also 

added a new McNair assurance 

requiring the coordination of efforts for 

students served by more than one 

Federal TRIO Program or other state or 

institutional program (see discussion 

regarding newly redesignated 

§ 647.11(d)). Accordingly, § 647.32(c)(5) 

now requires the McNair grantee to 

maintain, to the extent practicable, a 

record of any services McNair 

participants receive during the project 

year from another Federal TRIO 

program or another federally funded 

program that serves populations similar 

to those served under the McNair 

program. This change will help ensure 

that the limited funds available under 

TRIO and other programs for 

disadvantaged students are used 

effectively and efficiently by 

minimizing the duplication of services 

through coordination of activities. 

Change: We have added a new 

§ 647.32(c)(5) to require grantees to 

maintain, to the extent practicable, 

records documenting any services the 

participant receives during the project 

year from another Federal TRIO 

program or another federally funded 

program that serves populations similar 

to those served under the McNair 

program. 

Project Director (proposed § 647.32(d); 

final § 647.32(e)) 

Comments: We received a few 

comments requesting that we remove 

the requirement that a project employ a 

full-time project director. 

Discussion: The McNair program 

regulations do not require McNair 

projects to employ a full-time project 

director. While we did make changes to 

parallel sections of the regulations for 

other TRIO programs, we did not 

propose any changes to § 647.32(e) of 

these regulations. Accordingly, no 

changes are necessary in response to 

these comments. 

Changes: None. 

Part 694—Gaining Early Awareness 

and Readiness for Undergraduate 

Programs (GEAR UP) 

Changes in the Cohort (§ 694.4) 

Comment: One commenter asked how 

GEAR UP services would be provided to 

cohort students who move to nonparticipating schools after they 

complete the last grade level offered in 

a school. 

Discussion: Section 694.4 addresses 

which students a State or Partnership 

must serve under GEAR UP when there 

are changes in the cohort. Specifically, 

this section of the regulations requires 

that a GEAR UP grantee continue to 

provide services to at least those 

students in the cohort who, after 

completing the last grade level offered 

by the school at which the cohort began 

to receive GEAR UP services, attend one 

or more participating schools that 

together enroll a substantial majority of 

the students in the cohort. 

In response to the comment, we 

intend the term ‘‘participating schools’’ 

in § 694.4(b)(2) to refer to schools that 

students in a cohort attend after 

completing the last grade level offered 

by the school at which the cohort began 

to receive GEAR UP services. 

Based on the language in § 694.4, 

including our use of the term 

‘‘participating schools,’’ we assume that 

when the commenter uses the term 

‘‘non-participating schools’’ it does so to 

refer to schools that enroll no (or very 

few) students who have left the school 

at which their cohort began to receive 

GEAR UP services. Thus, we interpret 

the comment to be asking whether 

services must be provided to students in 

a cohort who, after completing the last 

grade level offered by the school at 

which the cohort began to receive GEAR 

UP services, move to a school that 

enrolls no (or very few) students from 

the cohort. While a GEAR UP grantee 

certainly could provide these students 

with GEAR UP services, nothing in this 

section requires it to do so. 

We appreciate that the commenter 

may be concerned that GEAR UP 

students be able to continue to receive 

services regardless of what school they 

attend. However, we believe that an 

LEA would likely encounter both 

logistical and financial challenges that 

would be difficult to overcome if the 

LEA were required to continue to 

provide GEAR UP services to each 

student in a cohort regardless of where 

the student may later enroll and how 

many other GEAR UP students also 

attend that school. We believe that the 

language of proposed § 694.4, which we 

adopt in this final notice, creates the 

right balance for when an LEA must 

continue to provide GEAR UP services 

to these students. 

Changes: None. 

Waiver of Matching Requirements 

(§§ 694.8 and 694.9) 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that proposed §§ 694.8 and 694.9 may 

not be consistent with section 

404C(b)(2) of the HEA, which was 

amended by section 404c(3)(C) of the 

HEOA. The commenter interprets this 

statutory section as authorizing either a 

State or a Partnership to apply for match 

relief either at the time of application or 

subsequent to receiving the grant award. 

The commenter observed that the 

proposed regulations do not authorize a 

State to seek such relief, and requested 

that we revise the final regulations to 

explain how a State may do so. 

Discussion: The Secretary believes 

that the best statutory interpretation of 

the language in section 404C(b)(2) of the 

HEA is that the Department’s authority 

to grant relief from the program’s 

matching requirement to GEAR UP 

applicants and grantees extends to 

Partnerships but not to States. While 

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

authorizes approval of ‘‘an eligible 

entity’s request for a reduced match 

percentage,’’ this language follows the 

lead sentence of the paragraph, which 

authorizes the Secretary, by regulation, 

to modify the minimum 50 percent 

match requirement only ‘‘for eligible 

entities described in section 404A(c)(2)’’ 

(i.e., Partnerships). Based on this 

language, we do not interpret the HEA 

to allow States to apply for match relief 

either at the time of application or 

subsequent to the grant award. 

Moreover, we believe that granting 

permission only to Partnerships to seek 

this reduced match percentage 

represents a reasonable approach given 

the greater capacity States have to 

provide matching contributions. We 

also note that during negotiated 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65753 

rulemaking none of the non-Federal 

negotiators expressed a contrary view, 

or urged that the language of our 

proposed §§ 694.8 and 694.9 be 

modified to reflect the availability of 

waiver relief for State applicants or 

grantees. 

Changes: None. 

What priorities does the Secretary 

establish for a GEAR UP grant? 

(§ 694.19) 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the proposed criteria for awarding 

competitive preference priority points 

for State applicants also be used for 

awarding competitive preference 

priority points to Partnership 

applicants. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s request that the proposed 

criteria for awarding competitive 

preference priority points to State 

applicants also be applied to 

Partnership applicants. Section 

404A(b)(3) of the HEA mandates that, in 

making awards to State grant applicants, 

the Secretary must give priority to 

eligible applicants that carried out 

successful GEAR UP projects 

immediately before enactment of the 

HEOA and have a prior, demonstrated 

commitment to early intervention 

leading to college access. Because this 

provision only references applicability 

to State applicants, we believe that 

Congress intended it only to apply those 

entities and not to Partnership 

applicants. Therefore, the Department 

does not have the authority to make the 

change requested by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Services to students who were served 

under a previous GEAR UP grant 

(§ 694.25) 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

summer enrichment programs would 

help those students who were served 

under a prior GEAR UP grant, but who 

had not yet graduated, to better prepare 

for postsecondary education. The 

commenter seemed to suggest that we 

revise § 694.25 to acknowledge the 

importance of these programs. 

Discussion: The Secretary agrees with 

the commenter on the importance of 

summer programs, particularly for those 

students who did not graduate from 

high school with members of their 

cohort. However, such programs are 

already specifically authorized in 

§ 694.22(i), and this is only one of many 

GEAR UP activities and strategies for 

helping these particular GEAR UP 

students to succeed. Moreover, the 

purpose of § 694.25 is to clarify when 

students who are still in secondary 

schools who were served under a prior 

GEAR UP grant need to continue to 

receive services under a new grant–-not 

to specify what services grantees should 

provide to meet these students’ needs. 

Changes: None. 

Executive Order 12866 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

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

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may (1) have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more, or adversely affect a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local or 

tribal governments or communities in a 

material way (also referred to as an 

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

create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impacts of 

entitlement grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

order. Pursuant to the Executive order, 

it has been determined that this 

regulatory action will have an annual 

effect on the economy of more than 

$100 million because the amount of 

government transfers provided through 

these discretionary grant programs will 

exceed that amount. Therefore, this 

action is ‘‘economically significant’’ and 

subject to OMB review under section 

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

The potential costs associated with 

this regulatory action are those resulting 

from statutory requirements and those 

we have determined as necessary for 

administering this program effectively 

and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits of this regulatory action, we 

have determined that the benefits of the 

regulations justify the costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

HEP and CAMP Programs 

The Secretary has concluded that 

there is no need to discuss the changes 

to the regulations for HEP and CAMP in 

the Regulatory Impact Analysis because 

the changes to regulations for these 

programs were minor. The most 

significant changes to these regulations 

address who can be considered an 

immediate family member of a migrant 

individual in order to be eligible for 

program services. The Department 

determined that providing clarity to the 

term ‘‘immediate family member’’ would 

help ensure there is a uniform standard 

of eligibility for these programs. 

Federal Trio Programs 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

• These Federal TRIO program 

regulations are needed to implement 

provisions of the HEOA, which changed 

certain features of the TRIO program. In 

developing these regulations, the 

Secretary has endeavored to regulate 

only where necessary: Number of 

Applications: The HEA stipulates that 

entities may submit multiple 

applications for grants under each TRIO 

program ‘‘if the additional applications 

describe programs serving different 

populations or different campuses.’’ The 

HEA, as amended by the HEOA, defines 

the terms ‘‘different population’’ and 

‘‘different campus.’’ 

• Section 643.22(d): Rigorous 

Secondary School Program of Study: 

The HEOA modified the HEA’s outcome 

criteria for Talent Search by adding the 

completion of a ‘‘rigorous secondary 

school program of study’’ as one of the 

criteria to be considered in calculating 

prior experience points. 

• Section 643.32: Changes to 

Minimum Number of Participants 

Served in Talent Search: In order to 

provide it with greater flexibility to 

establish the minimum number of 

participants in each TS grant 

competition, the Department has 

decided to eliminate the current 

regulatory requirement that TS projects 

serve a minimum number of 

individuals. 

• Sections 643.30 (TS), 644.30 (EOC), 

645.40 (UB), 646.30 (SSS), 647.30 

(McNair): Changes to Allowable Costs 

(Computer Hardware and Software): 

The requirement that grantees must seek 

prior approval for purchases of 

computer equipment was not addressed 

in the statute. However, based on 

comments received during negotiated 

rulemaking and the public comment 

period, the Department has decided to 

change its allowable cost regulations 

with respect to the purchase of 

computer equipment. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65754 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

Sections 643.7 and 643.10 (TS); 644.7 

and 644.10 (EOC); 645.6 and 645.20 

(UB); 646.7 and 646.10 (SSS); and 647.7 

and 647.10 (McNair): Number of 

Applications: Different Campuses and 

Different Populations 

The HEA stipulates that entities may 

submit multiple applications ‘‘if the 

additional applications describe 

programs serving different populations 

or different campuses.’’ Section 

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

‘‘different campus’’ and ‘‘different 

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

defined as a site of an institution of 

higher education that: Is geographically 

apart from the main campus of the 

institution; is permanent in nature; and 

offers courses in educational programs 

leading to a degree, certificate, or other 

recognized credential. A ‘‘different 

population’’ is defined in section 

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

individuals that an eligible entity 

desires to serve through an application 

for a TRIO grant that is: Separate and 

distinct from any other population that 

the entity has applied for a TRIO grant 

to serve; and while sharing some of the 

same needs as another population that 

the entity has applied to serve, has 

distinct needs for specialized services. 

The regulations clarify that, for the 

purposes of the TS and UB programs, 

applicants will be allowed to submit 

multiple applications if they plan to 

serve different target schools. For the 

SSS and McNair programs, applicants 

can submit multiple applications if they 

propose to serve different campuses. 

These final regulations establish a 

definition of ‘‘different campus’’ that is 

different from the definition of 

‘‘different campus’’ currently in the SSS 

regulations. Current SSS regulations 

require a ‘‘different campus’’ to have 

separate budget and hiring authority to 

be an eligible applicant. However, the 

HEA, as amended by HEOA, defined 

‘‘different campus’’ as a site of an 

institution of higher education that is: 

‘‘Geographically apart from the main 

campus of the institution,’’ ‘‘permanent,’’ 

and one that offers courses leading to an 

educational credential. These 

regulations, therefore, use the definition 

from the HEA. 

With respect to the implementation of 

the HEA’s definition of ‘‘different 

population,’’ initially, the Department 

proposed to implement this definitional 

change consistent with its current 

practice. Currently, all of the TRIO 

programs—except for SSS—prohibit an 

applicant from submitting an 

application proposing to serve a 

different population within the same 

target area, school, campus, etc. The 

SSS program allows an entity to submit 

a separate application to serve 

individuals with disabilities. However, 

during the negotiated rulemaking 

sessions, the non-Federal negotiators 

disagreed with this approach and 

argued that the HEA permits applicants 

to submit multiple applications that 

propose to serve different populations, 

even in the same target area, school, or 

campus. The Secretary has adopted this 

latter view. Under these final 

regulations, therefore, an applicant 

planning to serve a separate population 

will be permitted under certain 

circumstances to apply for a separate 

grant to serve the population even if it 

also applies to serve a different 

population of students on the same 

campus. 

While grantees must be able to serve 

more students and to tailor services to 

meet the distinct needs of different 

populations, the Department needs to 

establish some limitations on the 

number of separate applications an 

eligible entity may submit for each 

competition. Without such limitations, 

adding the definition of the term 

different population to the regulations 

could have the unintended consequence 

of disproportionately increasing funding 

at some institutions, agencies, and 

organizations that submit several 

applications while limiting the funds 

available to expand program services to 

other areas, schools, and institutions. To 

mitigate this risk and to ensure fairness 

and consistency in the application 

process, the Department has amended 

the regulations for each of the TRIO 

programs to provide that the 

Department will define, for each 

competition, the different populations 

for which an eligible entity can submit 

separate applications and publish this 

information in the Federal Register 

notice inviting applications and other 

application materials for the 

competition. 

This approach gives the Department 

the flexibility to designate the different 

populations for each competition based 

on changing national needs. It also 

permits the Department to more 

effectively manage the program 

competitions within the available 

resources. 

For these reasons, under the final 

regulations, an entity applying for more 

than one grant under the TS, EOC, and 

UB programs may submit separate 

applications to serve different target 

areas and different target schools, and 

may also submit separate applications to 

serve one or more of the different 

populations designated in the Federal 

Register notice inviting applications. 

Entities applying for grants under the 

SSS and McNair programs will now be 

able to submit separate applications to 

serve different campuses and may also 

submit separate applications to serve 

one or more of the different populations 

designated in the Federal Register 

notice inviting applications for the 

competition. 

These regulatory changes are expected 

to increase the number of grant 

applications for SSS (and other TRIO) 

grants. For the SSS program, the 

Department estimates an increase of 

about 450 applicants (from 1,200 to 

1,650) for each competition. With 450 

new applicants devoting approximately 

34 hours to the process, the Department 

estimates that the amount of money 

spent on applications by applicants will 

increase by $742,950. (Note, however, 

that the cost to individual applicants is 

not expected to increase). 

INCREASE IN AGGREGATE APPLICANT COSTS

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.’’ 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65755 

In addition, the cost of administering 

the SSS grant competition will likely 

increase. In particular, the Department 

estimates that variable costs of 

processing and reviewing applications 

will increase by 37.5 percent. The cost 

of retaining outside reviewers should 

increase to $555,000 from $404,000 

while application processing costs 

should increase from approximately 

$25,000 to $34,560. Costs associated 

with staff time for conducting the 

supervised review process are expected 

to increase from $377,000 to $518,000. 

Finally, costs associated with financing 

workshops, field reading, and slate 

preparation are expected to increase 

from $917,000 to $1,260,625. In sum, 

the Department estimates the expected 

increase in grant applications to 

increase administration costs by 

approximately $646,000. 

INCREASE IN COST TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

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 or staff 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 

should increase the delivery of the right 

kinds of services to students. SSS 

projects geared specifically towards ESL 

students, for instance, should be able to 

provide highly specialized services to 

these students in a more efficient and 

effective manner than would a general 

SSS project. 

Section 643.30: Rigorous Secondary 

School Program of Study Adding 

Tuition as an Allowable Cost in the TS 

program: 

The HEOA modified the outcome 

criteria for the TS program. These 

outcome criteria are used to determine 

the award of prior experience points for 

grantees that choose to apply for future 

awards. One of the new outcome criteria 

added to the statute requires grantees to 

report on the number of all TS 

participants who complete a rigorous 

secondary school program of study that 

will make the students eligible for 

Academic Competitiveness Grants 

(ACG). This new statutory criterion in 

and of itself does not require that TS 

projects provide more intensive 

services: It could be interpreted simply 

as requiring the Department to track 

whether TS students, with proper 

counseling on course selection and with 

referrals to tutoring services, enroll in 

the coursework that would qualify them 

for an ACG grant. (In most States, 

students can qualify for an ACG grant if 

they complete four years of English; 

three years of mathematics, including 

algebra I and a higher-level class such 

as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis 

and statistics; three years of science, 

including at least two of three specific 

courses, biology, chemistry, and 

physics; three years of social studies; 

and one year of a language other than 

English. In addition, under the ACG 

program, there are other options for 

meeting the rigorous course of study 

requirement, including taking 

International Baccalaureate or 

Advanced Placement courses.) 

A number of commenters on the 

proposed regulations contended some 

schools served by TS grantees do not 

provide the type of curriculum 

necessary for students to meet the ACG 

program’s requirements for a ‘‘rigorous 

secondary school program of study.’’ 

Consequently, they argued, grantees 

serving students in these schools would 

be at a disadvantage with respect to 

meeting this criterion. They specifically 

requested that grantees be permitted to 

use grant funds to enable participants in 

the TS program to attend classes at other 

schools to help grantees satisfactorily 

meet this new outcome criterion. 

The Department has decided to allow 

TS grantees to use grant funds to pay a 

participant’s tuition for a course that is 

part of a rigorous secondary school 

program of study if a similar course is 

not offered at a school within his or her 

school district provided that several 

conditions are met. The Department also 

has decided to allow TS grantees to pay 

for a student’s transportation to a school 

not regularly attended by that student 

for that student to take a course that is 

part of a rigorous secondary school 

program of study. 

To determine the impact of these 

regulations, we need to estimate the 

number of TS participants who do not 

have access to a rigorous secondary 

school program of study at their high 

school and the cost of providing these 

participants with the requisite 

curriculum (through payment of tuition 

and transportation costs to locations at 

which the participants will receive 

instruction). We also need to estimate 

the extent to which grantees that are 

serving schools with these participants 

will elect to incur these costs. 

According to recent program data 

from the ACG 2007–2008 End of the 

Year Report, 54 percent of ACG 

recipients qualified under a rigorous 

coursework component, 41 percent 

under a State designated curriculum, 

and four percent under the Advanced 

Placement or International 

Baccalaureate Program courses. The 

Department asked the public for data on 

the extent to which rigorous coursework 

offerings that would meet the ACG 

requirements are not available at the 

schools or areas that are targeted under 

the TS program and the number of 

potential TS participants in these 

schools or areas that would be unable to 

meet the requirements because of the 

unavailability of the curriculum. The 

only data we received from the public 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65756 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

6 GAO, ‘‘Additional Efforts Could Help Education 

With its Education Goals,’’ May 2003, available at 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03568.pdf. 

with respect to the availability of 

rigorous curricula at TS schools 

described the availability of such course 

offerings at the Portland Public Schools 

and the Hillsboro School District. 

According to the commenter providing 

these data, the secondary schools in 

these districts now provide a 

curriculum that meets the third 

definition of a rigorous secondary 

school program in these regulations and, 

by the 2011–2012 academic year, all 

these schools will be required to 

provide such a curriculum. Although 

we do not have national data on the 

number of affected students, we do have 

some data on the cost of providing 

tuition assistance. Based on data 

collected by the American Association 

of Community Colleges (AACC) in 2008, 

we estimate that the cost of providing a 

student with one course per semester, 

including required textbooks, would be 

approximately $560 to $1,280. AACC 

data indicate that the per credit costs for 

public community colleges range from 

about $20 in California to $180 in 

Vermont. This compares to an average 

grantee cost per TS participant of 

approximately $402 in 2008, which 

means that the opportunity cost of 

providing tuition for one TS participant 

to take one class at a community college 

is roughly equal to what it costs on 

average to serve 1 to 3 additional 

participants under the TS program prior 

to the enactment of HEOA. Because we 

do not know the extent to which 

grantees will elect to use funds for this 

purpose or the actual costs of providing 

access to this coursework, we asked 

current TS grantees to provide estimates 

regarding the amount of the project 

budget that might be used for tuition 

and the estimated number of 

participants that might benefit each year 

from this service if the grantee elected 

to provide it. A few grantees responded 

to this request, but their comments were 

based on an expectation that the new 

regulations would introduce a twotiered system of service-provision in 

which grantees would concentrate on 

providing a rigorous secondary school 

program of study to only 10 percent of 

its participants. In these final 

regulations, the Department is clarifying 

that TS grantees will collaborate and 

coordinate with their target schools to 

provide access to and assistance in 

completing a rigorous secondary school 

program of study for all participants (see 

§ 643.21(c)(4)). With respect to the 

benefits of this regulatory change, the 

Secretary believes that students enrolled 

in schools with curricula that do not 

meet the State’s definition of a rigorous 

secondary school program of study will 

be the primary beneficiaries. TS 

participants in schools that do not offer 

all of the coursework needed to meet the 

requirements of a rigorous secondary 

school program of study (e.g., they do 

not offer a physics or chemistry course) 

may be afforded the opportunity to take 

such coursework through an institution 

of higher education. Given the body of 

research suggesting that students who 

take rigorous classes in high school are 

more likely to enroll in and complete 

postsecondary education, providing this 

benefit to TS participants could improve 

their educational outcomes. A 2003 

GAO report, for instance, reported that 

students taking a highly rigorous 

secondary school program of study were 

1.7 times more likely to earn a 

bachelor’s degree than students who 

took a basic high school curriculum.6

However, grantees will need to balance 

the costs of providing these 

opportunities to individual students 

with the expected educational benefits 

to avoid an unnecessary increase in the 

cost of successful outcomes under this 

program. 

Section 643.32: Changes to the 

Minimum Number of Participants 

Served in TS 

Current TS regulations require that 

any grantee receiving an award of 

$180,000 or more must serve a 

minimum of 600 individuals. In these 

final regulations, the Department 

removes this requirement that TS 

projects serve a minimum number of 

individuals. 

The Department has decided to take 

this action to provide it flexibility in 

each competition to establish the 

minimum number of participants that 

must be served, and to adjust these 

numbers in subsequent competitions 

based on experience, cost analyses, and 

other factors. 

The Department is committed to 

encouraging TS grantees to identify and 

adopt the most cost-effective strategies 

to help disadvantaged youth complete 

secondary school programs, enroll in or 

reenter education programs at the 

postsecondary level, and complete 

postsecondary education programs. The 

Department intends to design future TS 

grant competitions to achieve this 

objective. Grant competition notices 

will set parameters that are consistent 

with the statute to encourage adoption 

of cost effective practices using the best 

available evidence. This will include 

setting a minimum number of program 

participants for each competition to 

promote adoption of cost-effective 

practices. 

In accordance with § 643.32(b) of the 

final regulations, the Secretary will 

specify the number of participants a TS 

project will be expected to serve each 

year of the grant cycle through the 

Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for a competition. Through 

this notice, the Secretary will also 

provide the minimum and maximum 

grant award amounts for the project 

period. 

Sections 643.30 (TS), 644.30 (EOC), 

645.40 (UB), 646.30 (SSS), 647.30 

(McNair): Changes to Allowable Costs 

(Computer Hardware and Software) 

Under the final regulations, TRIO 

projects no longer are required to obtain 

the Secretary’s approval before 

purchasing computer and software 

equipment. This regulatory change 

eliminates administrative costs 

associated with obtaining this approval. 

GEAR UP 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

The final GEAR UP regulations are 

needed to implement provisions of the 

HEOA, which changed certain features 

of the GEAR UP program. The Secretary 

has endeavored to regulate only where 

necessary, and in ways that to the extent 

possible reflect the recommendations of 

the non-Federal negotiators. The 

statutory changes that have prompted us 

to make changes in these regulations 

follows: 

• Section 694.19—Priority: Section 

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

that priority be given to those States that 

have ‘‘carried out successful [GEAR UP] 

programs’’ prior to enactment of the 

HEOA, and have a ‘‘prior, demonstrated 

commitment to early intervention 

leading to college access through 

collaboration and replication of 

successful strategies.’’ 

• Section 694.8—Waiver of Matching 

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

HEA, as amended by the HEOA, permits 

the Secretary to waive the matching 

requirement for a Partnership in whole 

or in part if, at the time of application, 

the Partnership demonstrates significant 

economic hardship that precludes it 

from meeting the matching requirement, 

or requests that its contributions to the 

scholarship fund under section 404E of 

the HEA be matched on a two-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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65757 

has exhausted all revenues for replacing 

these matching funds. 

• Sections §§ 694.12 and 694.14— 

Scholarship Component: Section 

404E(e)(1) of the HEA, as amended by 

the HEOA, requires each State grantee to 

reserve an amount of money that is not 

less than the minimum scholarship 

amount described in section 404E(d) of 

the HEA, multiplied by the number of 

students the grantee estimates will 

complete a secondary school diploma or 

its equivalent as may be required for the 

students’ admission and enrollment at 

an institution of higher education. The 

Department interprets this new statutory 

provision along with the new 

requirement in section 404E(d) of the 

HEA that all eligible students (as 

defined in section 404E(g) of the HEA), 

whether served by a State or Partnership 

grantee, who enroll in an institution of 

higher education receive at least the 

minimum Federal Pell Grant award, to 

require any GEAR UP grantee subject to 

the section 404E requirements to 

provide this minimum award to all 

GEAR UP students enrolled in an 

institution of higher education. This 

statutory change led the Department to 

revisit its current regulations governing 

the provision of continuation 

scholarships. 

• Section § 694.16—Return of Unused 

Scholarship Funds: Section 

404E(e)(4)(A) of the HEA, as amended 

by the HEOA, now requires State 

grantees either to redistribute to other 

eligible students scholarship funds that 

are not used by eligible students within 

six years of the student’s completion of 

secondary school or return those funds 

to the Secretary for distribution to other 

grantees in accordance with the funding 

rules described in section 404B(a) of the 

HEA. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

Section 694.19: Priority 

Final § 694.19 clarifies how the 

Department will implement the statute’s 

requirement that priority in making 

awards be given to those States that 

meet the following elements: (1) Prior to 

enactment of the HEOA have ‘‘carried 

out successful GEAR UP programs’’ and 

(2) have a ‘‘prior, demonstrated 

commitment to early intervention 

leading to college access through 

collaboration and replication of 

successful strategies.’’ While the 

Department could seek to implement 

this statutory priority by having 

applicants address in their applications 

how they met of these elements, we 

believe that imposing this kind of data 

burden is unnecessary. 

Instead, we will rely, where possible, 

on reports that applicants previously 

submitted in implementing their prior 

GEAR UP projects. Thus, to implement 

this statutory priority, the Department 

will grant ‘‘priority preference points’’ to 

State applicants, based, in part, on their 

prior submission of data, including 

outcome data, about their projects and 

other information available to the 

Department. At present, the Department 

is considering implementing the second 

element of the priority, which concerns 

a prior, demonstrated commitment to 

early intervention leading to college 

access, through review of the new GEAR 

UP application itself given that we do 

not know how else the Department 

would obtain the information it needs to 

determine the extent to which 

applicants would meet the second 

element of the priority. Moreover, 

should the Department determine that it 

needs applicants to provide more 

information on this second element in 

their applications, the Department 

believes that the additional burden 

would be very small, and that the costs 

of this additional administrative burden 

would be far outweighed by the benefits 

of ensuring that the Department is able 

to give priority to the most deserving 

State applicants. 

Sections 694.8 and 694.9: Waiver of 

Matching Requirements 

Consistent with section 404C(b) of the 

HEA, as amended by the HEOA, these 

new sections specify the circumstances 

in which the Secretary will consider 

requests from applicants for a waiver of 

GEAR UP’s matching requirement based 

on significant economic hardship, and 

from grantees based on the 

unavailability of matching funds as 

described in section 404C(b)(2)(A) and 

(b)(2)(B) of the HEA. (Section 

404C(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the HEA also 

authorizes a Partnership applicant to 

request that contributions to scholarship 

funds established under section 404E of 

the HEA be matched on two-to-one 

basis, but final § 694.8(c) simply repeats 

this statutory provision.) 

The final regulations governing 

waiver requests by applicants (§ 694.8) 

and by grantees (§ 694.9) provide 

significant benefit to the public, and do 

so in numerous ways. First, they 

provide that the Secretary will entertain 

waiver requests of significant amounts 

from applicants and grantees—up to 75 

percent for up to two years in the case 

of an applicant that demonstrates a 

significant economic hardship 

stemming from a specific, exceptional, 

or uncontrollable event, and up to 50 

percent for up to two years in the case 

of an applicant with a pre-existing and 

on-going significant economic hardship 

that precludes the applicant from 

meeting the matching requirement. 

Second, by providing clarifying 

examples of the kinds of economic 

situations and events that would give 

rise to approval of an applicant’s or 

grantee’s waiver requests, the final 

regulations advise the public of the 

considerations the Secretary will 

examine upon receipt of a waiver 

request. 

Finally, for an applicant in an area 

that faces chronic economic challenges 

expected to affect the life of the GEAR 

UP project, § 694.8(b)(3) permits the 

Secretary to grant tentative approval of 

the waiver for the entire project period, 

subject to the Partnership’s submission 

of documentation every two years that 

confirms (1) the continued economic 

hardship, and (2) the Partnership’s 

continuing and unsuccessful attempts to 

secure matching contributions. This 

regulatory provision both eliminates the 

applicant’s need to prepare a nonFederal budget as part of its application, 

and upon initial approval of the waiver 

request, provides a basis for predicting 

whether or not the Secretary will extend 

the waiver in future years. 

Thus, these regulatory provisions 

provide a substantial benefit to grantees 

meeting the new criteria. For example, 

in 2009, the average GEAR UP grant 

award made to a Partnership was 

approximately $1.1 million. Because, 

absent a waiver, GEAR UP grantees 

must match the amount of Federal 

expenditures, the average annual 

matching requirement for a Partnership 

was also $1.1 million in 2009. However, 

under §§ 694.8(b) and 694.9(a)(1), a 

Partnership-applicant that can 

demonstrate an ongoing significant 

economic hardship that precludes it 

from meeting the matching requirement, 

or a Partnership grantee that can 

demonstrate that its matching 

contributions are no longer available 

and that it has exhausted all funds and 

sources of potential replacement 

contributions, could receive a waiver up 

to 50 percent, or on average up to 

$600,000 per year. And, under 

§§ 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65758 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

would not be able to continue operating 

their GEAR UP projects without these 

waivers, these regulations enable the 

participating students to continue to 

receive GEAR UP services, albeit at a 

reduced level given the smaller 

matching contributions. 

In considering the amount of match 

subject to possible waiver, the 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. 

Accordingly, they rejected options 

under which the Secretary might 

provide a waiver of the matching 

contributions for one or more years of 

the project because of economic 

conditions or a one-time exceptional or 

uncontrollable event waiver of up to 100 

percent. 

We agree with the non-Federal 

negotiators on this issue. We believe 

that our decision to allow the Secretary 

to grant waivers of the program’s 

matching requirement of up to 50 and 

75 percent strikes the right balance 

between (a) providing relief where 

circumstances beyond the control of a 

Partnership affect its ability to maintain 

its required match, and (b) the need for 

members of the Partnership to be truly 

committed to helping to provide the 

services that participating GEAR UP 

students need. 

Sections 694.12 and 694.14: Scholarship 

Component 

Final § 694.14(g) makes the 

requirement in prior § 694.10(d) that 

grantees participating in the scholarship 

component must grant continuation 

scholarships to each student who was 

granted an initial scholarship (and who 

remains eligible) inapplicable to 

grantees that receive their initial GEAR 

UP awards on or after August 14, 2008. 

Our decision to remove this financial 

burden from these grantees recognizes 

that by requiring each eligible student to 

receive at least the Federal Pell Grant 

minimum award, section 404E of the 

HEA, as amended by the HEOA, will 

leave grantees with insufficient 

scholarship funds to meet the current 

regulatory requirement. While GEAR UP 

students may bear a corresponding cost 

by not having these continuation awards 

available to them, this cost results from 

the new statutory requirement that all 

eligible students receive at least the Pell 

Grant minimum award. Because the 

minimum scholarship amount is equal 

to the minimum Federal Pell Grant 

award, which is defined in section 

401(b)(4) of the HEA as 10 percent of the 

maximum Pell Grant award, the benefit 

to grantees as a result of final § 694.14(g) 

is equal to at least 10 percent of the 

appropriated maximum Pell grant award 

in a given year, multiplied by the 

number of individuals the grantee 

determines will not receive 

continuation awards. Importantly, 

because removing the continuation 

award requirement from the GEAR UP 

regulations only applies to new awards, 

no GEAR UP students in newly funded 

projects will have the expectation of 

receiving a GEAR UP continuation 

scholarship. 

Section 694.16: Return of Unused 

Scholarship Funds 

Section 404E(e)(4)(A)(ii) of HEA, as 

amended by the HEOA, requires 

grantees to return to the Secretary any 

scholarship funds that remain after they 

have first redistributed unused funds to 

eligible students. To enable the 

Department to monitor these 

scholarship accounts and ensure that 

Federal funds reserved for scholarships 

are expended as intended, the 

Department has added § 694.16(c), 

which requires grantees participating in 

the scholarship component of the 

program to provide annual information, 

as the Secretary may require, on the 

amount of Federal and non-Federal 

funds reserved for GEAR UP 

scholarships, and the disbursement of 

those scholarship funds to eligible 

GEAR UP students. These annual 

reports will need to be submitted until 

all of the funds are either disbursed or 

returned to the Secretary. 

This requirement imposes an 

administrative burden on the grantees. 

Grantees will be able to charge some of 

these administrative costs to their award 

of Federal GEAR UP grant funds 

because some of these annual reports 

will be prepared and submitted during 

the project period. Other annual reports 

will need to be prepared and submitted 

after the six-or seven-year GEAR UP 

project period has ended (by which time 

it is possible that the Partnerships have 

dissolved). In order to pay the costs of 

post-project reports, grantees may (1) 

reserve additional amounts during each 

project period for the future costs of 

preparing and submitting post-project 

reports, or (2) authorize those 

administering the GEAR UP scholarship 

accounts to deduct such amount from 

the amount held in reserve for GEAR UP 

scholarships (assuming that all eligible 

students will still be able to receive a 

minimum Federal Pell Grant award). 

Because the Department has not yet 

established detailed reporting 

requirements for this regulatory 

provision, it is difficult to estimate the 

costs that grantees could charge to 

GEAR UP funds. However, based on all 

available information, the Secretary 

believes that the costs introduced by 

this regulatory provision are justified by 

the Department’s need to have the 

necessary information to monitor the 

millions of dollars of Federal funds 

obligated to GEAR UP scholarship 

accounts. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at http:// 

www.Whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars/ 

a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table, we 

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this regulatory action. This 

table provides our best estimate of the 

Federal payments to be made to 

institutions of higher education, public 

and private agencies and organizations, 

and secondary schools under these 

programs as a result of this regulatory 

action. Expenditures are classified as 

transfers to those entities. 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

Category Transfers 

(in millions) 

Annual Monetized 

Transfers.

$1,233 

From Whom to Whom Federal Government 

to institutions of 

higher education, 

public and private 

agencies and organizations, and secondary schools. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that these 

regulations will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The regulations affect 

institutions of higher education, States, 

LEAs, and nonprofit organizations. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act defines 

three types of ‘‘small entities.’’ They 

include ‘‘small businesses,’’ which have 

the same meaning as ‘‘small business 

concern’’ under section 3 of the Small 

Business Act and includes firms that are 

‘‘independently owned and operated’’ 

and ‘‘not dominant in its field of 

operation.’’ The U.S. Small Business 

Administration further defines small 

business by developing size standards 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65759 

by industry. The definition of small 

business includes for-profit schools 

with total annual revenue below 

$7,000,000. The definition of small 

entity also includes ‘‘small 

organizations,’’ which are defined as 

‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

not dominant in its field,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions,’’ which 

include schools districts under 50,000. 

HEP and CAMP 

The Secretary believes that the minor 

changes reflected in the HEP and CAMP 

regulations will not affect small entities. 

Federal TRIO Programs 

The Secretary believes that the 

regulations for the Federal TRIO 

Programs will not adversely impact any 

small entities receiving TRIO grants. 

The Department has determined that 

approximately 141 of the 2,887 TRIO 

grantees are defined as ‘‘small entities’’ 

under the U.S. Small Business 

Administration’s size standards. Of 

these 141 entities, 133 are nonprofit 

organizations that receive less than 

$5,000,000 in total annual revenue, 7 

are LEAs or tribes with jurisdictions 

containing fewer than 50,000 people, 

and one is a secondary school. The 

Secretary believes that the final Federal 

TRIO regulations will not negatively 

impact these small entities and, in fact, 

believes that small grantees will benefit 

from these regulations. For example, the 

removal of the minimum students 

served requirement under the TS 

program will benefit small entities, 

whose typically smaller budgets make it 

difficult to serve large numbers of 

students. In addition, the elimination of 

the requirement for grantees to obtain 

the Secretary’s approval before 

purchasing computer equipment will 

benefit small grantees, in particular, 

because administrative costs for these 

grantees are most burdensome. Most 

importantly, given that TRIO programs 

are competitive grant programs, all costs 

of participating are reimbursed by the 

grant. 

GEAR UP 

The Secretary believes that the final 

GEAR UP regulations will not adversely 

impact any small entities receiving 

GEAR UP grants. The 42 States 

receiving grants are not small entities 

because each State has a population 

exceeding 50,000. Thirty of the fiscal 

agents for the 154 Partnership grants are 

LEAs; according to the U.S. Census 

Bureau, 6 of these LEAs have 

jurisdiction over an area with fewer 

than 50,000 residents, and as such, are 

defined as ‘‘small entities’’ under the 

U.S. Small Business Administration size 

standards. However, the Secretary 

believes that these small entities will 

not be adversely impacted by the 

regulations. In accordance with 

statutory changes, the regulations 

regarding matching requirement waivers 

should particularly benefit small fiscal 

agents, which are more vulnerable to 

economic hardship than large fiscal 

agents, and, therefore, more likely to 

qualify for waivers. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Sections 642.21, 642.22, and 642.25 of 

the Training Program for Federal TRIO 

Programs (Training) regulations; 

§§ 643.21, 643.22, 643.24 and 643.32 of 

the Talent Search (TS) regulations; 

§§ 644.21, 644.22, 644.24, and 644.32 of 

the Educational Opportunity Centers 

(EOC) regulations; §§ 645.31; 645.32, 

645.35, and 645.43 of the Upward 

Bound (UB) regulations; §§ 646.11, 

646.21, 646.22, 646.24, 646.32, 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 will 

submit a copy of these sections to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for its review. 

Parts 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647— 

Federal TRIO Programs 

Recent grant application packages for 

the Training, SSS, TS, EOC, UB, and 

McNair programs have been or will be 

discontinued; new application packages 

for these programs will be developed 

prior to their next competitions, and 

will reflect the regulatory changes 

included in these final regulations. For 

each new application, a separate 30-day 

Federal Register notice will be 

published to solicit comments on the 

new application prior to the next 

scheduled competition for the program. 

Likewise, any regulatory changes 

applicable to the annual performance 

reports (APRs) will affect grants 

awarded under competitions conducted 

after the enactment of the HEOA. The 

APRs for the first year of a new grant 

will be due approximately 15 months 

after the beginning of the new grant 

period. Until new grants are awarded, 

the Department will continue to use the 

existing APR for the program. A new 

APR for each program that addresses the 

new HEOA requirements will be 

developed for the new grant period. A 

separate 60-day Federal Register notice 

followed by a 30-day Federal Register 

notice will be published to solicit public 

comment on the new APR form for each 

program prior to its usage. 

Sections 642.21 and 642.25

(Training)—Selection criteria the 

Secretary uses to evaluate an 

application for a new grant and the 

second review process for unsuccessful 

applicants. 

The final regulations for the Training 

program amend the selection criteria the 

Secretary uses to evaluate an 

application for a new grant to conform 

to current practice. Further, section 

402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA established a 

formal second review process for 

unsuccessful TRIO applicants. 

Therefore, the final regulations include 

a new section that establishes processes 

and procedures for a second review of 

unsuccessful applications. The new 

application will include the changes to 

the selection criteria and describe the 

processes and procedures for the second 

review of unsuccessful applications. 

Specifically, these regulations remove 

the Need criterion from the selection 

criteria for the Training program 

(current § 642.31(f)) to conform to 

current practice. An applicant for a 

Training grant now will need to address 

one of the absolute priorities established 

in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for the competition. With 

the absolute priorities, the Department 

will establish the ‘‘need’’ for the 

proposed training; thus, the Need 

selection criterion is no longer 

necessary. This regulatory change will 

reduce the amount of information an 

applicant must include in its 

application. 

In addition, the application will 

describe the procedures an unsuccessful 

applicant must follow to request a 

second review of its application. Under 

the final regulations, only those 

applicants in the proposed ‘‘funding 

band’’ will be eligible to request a 

second review. As described in the 

regulations, the Department will notify 

an unsuccessful applicant in writing as 

to the status of its application and the 

‘‘funding band’’ for the second review 

and provide copies of the peer 

reviewers’ evaluations of the application 

and the applicant’s prior experience 

(PE) scores, if applicable. The applicant 

will be given at least 15 calendar days 

after receiving notification that its 

application was not funded in which to 

submit a written request for a second 

review in accordance with the 

instructions and due date provided in 

the Secretary’s written notification. To 

be considered for a second review, an 

applicant must provide evidence 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65760 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

demonstrating that the Department, an 

agent of the Department, or a peer 

reviewer made a technical, 

administrative or scoring error in the 

processing or review of the application. 

The applicant, however, is not 

permitted to submit any additional data 

or information related to the criteria 

used to evaluate the quality of the 

application that was not included in its 

original application. 

The regulatory change to the selection 

criteria reduces the amount of 

information an applicant must include 

in its application, resulting in an 

estimated burden reduction of 240 

hours. In addition, we estimate that 

approximately 10 percent of the 

applications received under each 

competition for Training grants will 

score within the ‘‘funding band.’’ For 

each applicant in the ‘‘funding band’’ 

that requests a second review, we 

estimate an additional burden of two 

hours for a burden increase of 12 hours, 

which includes the time an applicant 

would need to review the peer 

reviewers’ evaluations and, if 

applicable, the PE assessment and 

submit a written request for a second 

review. 

Taken together, the regulatory 

changes reflected in §§ 642.21 and 

642.25 will result in a net total burden 

reduction of 228 hours, reflected in 

OMB Control Number 1840–NEW1. 

Sections 643.21 and 643.24 (TS)— 

Selection criteria the Secretary uses to 

evaluate an application for a new grant 

and the second review process for 

unsuccessful applicants. 

The final regulations amend the 

selection criteria the Secretary uses to 

evaluate an application for a new TS 

grant to address statutory changes 

resulting from the HEOA. Further, 

section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as 

amended by the HEOA, added 

requirements for a formal second review 

process for unsuccessful applicants. 

Therefore, the final regulations add a 

new section that establishes processes 

and procedures for a second review of 

unsuccessful applications. The new 

application will include the changes to 

the selection criteria and the processes 

and procedures for the second review of 

unsuccessful applications. 

The HEOA made significant changes 

to the purpose and goals of the TS 

program as reflected in changes to 

applicant eligibility, the list of required 

and permissible services, and the 

outcome criteria. To better align the 

selection criteria with these statutory 

changes, we revised the following 

selection criteria: § 643.21(a) (Need for 

the project); 643.21(b) (Objectives); 

643.21(c) (Plan of operation); and 

643.21(d) (Applicant and community 

support). 

In addition, the application for TS 

competitions will describe the 

procedures an unsuccessful applicant 

must follow to request a second review 

of its application. Under the regulations, 

only those applicants in the proposed 

‘‘funding band’’ will be eligible to 

request a second review. As described 

in the final regulations, the Department 

will notify an unsuccessful applicant in 

writing as to the status of its application 

and the ‘‘funding band’’ for the second 

review and provide copies of the peer 

reviewers’ evaluations of the application 

and the applicant’s PE scores, if 

applicable. The applicant will be given 

at least 15 calendar days after receiving 

notification that its application was not 

funded in which to submit a written 

request for a second review in 

accordance with the instructions and 

due date provided in the Secretary’s 

written notification. To be considered 

for a second review, an applicant will 

need to provide evidence demonstrating 

that the Department, an agent of the 

Department, or a peer reviewer made a 

technical, administrative or scoring 

error in the processing or review of the 

application. The applicant, however, 

will not be able to submit any additional 

data or information related to the 

criteria used to evaluate the quality of 

the application that was not included in 

its original application. 

The Department does not expect the 

changes to the TS selection criteria to 

increase an applicant’s paperwork 

burden. However, we estimate that 

approximately two percent of the 

applications received under each 

competition for TS grants will score 

within the ‘‘funding band’’. For each 

applicant in the ‘‘funding band’’ that 

requests a second review, we estimate 

an additional burden of two hours, 

which includes the time an applicant 

would need to review the peer 

reviewers’ evaluations and, if 

applicable, the PE assessment and 

submit a written request for a second 

review. This will result in a total burden 

increase of 60 hours for the revised 

application, which will be reflected in 

a new OMB Control Number 1840– 

NEW2. The Department has already 

solicited public comments in a separate 

30-day Federal Register notice that was 

published on August 5, 2010 (75 FR 

37415) on the new application process 

that will be used for the FY 2011 

competition for new TS grants; the 

estimated deadline date for receiving 

applications for this competition is 

December 2010. 

Sections 644.21 and 644.24 (EOC)— 

Selection criteria the Secretary uses to 

evaluate an application for a new grant 

and the second review process for 

unsuccessful applicants. 

The final regulations for the EOC 

program amend the selection criteria the 

Secretary uses to evaluate an 

application for a new grant to address 

statutory changes resulting from the 

HEOA. Further, section 402A(c)(8)(C) of 

the HEA, as amended by the HEOA, 

added requirements for a formal second 

review process for unsuccessful 

applicants. Therefore, the final 

regulations will establish processes and 

procedures for a second review of 

unsuccessful applications. The new 

grant application for the EOC program 

will include the changes to the selection 

criteria and describe the processes and 

procedures for the second review of 

unsuccessful applications. 

Revisions in the selection criteria are 

needed to address the statutory changes 

resulting from the HEOA. The HEOA 

made changes to the outcome criteria. 

To better align the selection criteria 

with these statutory changes, we revised 

the selection criteria in § 644.21(b) 

(Objectives). The revised selection 

criteria replace existing criteria. 

In addition, the EOC grant application 

will describe the procedures an 

unsuccessful applicant would need to 

follow to request a second review of its 

application. Under these regulations, 

only those applicants in the ‘‘funding 

band’’ will be eligible to request a 

second review. As described in the 

regulations, the Department will notify 

an unsuccessful applicant in writing as 

to the status of its application and the 

‘‘funding band’’ for the second review 

and provide copies of the peer 

reviewers’ evaluations of the application 

and the applicant’s PE scores, if 

applicable. The applicant will be given 

at least 15 calendar days after receiving 

notification that its application was not 

funded in which to submit a written 

request for a second review in 

accordance with the instructions and 

due date provided in the Secretary’s 

written notification. To be considered 

for a second review, an applicant will 

need to provide evidence demonstrating 

that the Department, an agent of the 

Department, or a peer reviewer made a 

technical, administrative or scoring 

error in the processing or review of the 

application. The applicant, however, 

will not be able to submit any additional 

data or information related to the 

criteria used to evaluate the quality of 

the application that was not included in 

its original application. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65761 

The Department does not expect these 

changes to the selection criteria will 

increase an applicant’s paperwork 

burden. However, we estimate that 

approximately two percent of the 

applications received under each 

competition for EOC grants will score 

within the ‘‘funding band.’’ For each 

applicant in the ‘‘funding band’’ that 

requests a second review, we estimate 

an additional burden of two hours, 

which includes the time an applicant 

would need to review the peer 

reviewers’ evaluations and, if 

applicable, the PE assessment and 

submit a written request for a second 

review. This will result in a total burden 

increase of 20 hours for the revised 

application, which will be reflected in 

a new OMB Control Number 1840– 

NEW3. A separate 30-day Federal 

Register notice will be published to 

solicit public comment on the new 

application form to be used for the next 

competition for new EOC grants 

currently scheduled for winter 2011. 

Sections 645.31 and 645.35 (UB)— 

Selection criteria the Secretary uses to 

evaluate an application for a new grant 

and the second review process for 

unsuccessful applicants. 

The final UB regulations amend the 

selection criteria the Secretary uses to 

evaluate an application for a new grant 

to address statutory changes resulting 

from the HEOA. Further, section 

402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended 

by the HEOA, added requirements for a 

formal second review process for 

unsuccessful applicants. Therefore, the 

final regulations establish processes and 

procedures for a second review of 

unsuccessful applications. The new 

application for UB grant competitions 

will include the changes to the selection 

criteria and describe the processes and 

procedures for the second review of 

unsuccessful applications. 

The HEOA made changes to applicant 

eligibility and the outcome criteria. To 

better align the selection criteria with 

these statutory changes, we revised the 

following selection criteria: §§ 645.31(b) 

(Objectives) and 645.31(d)(2) (Applicant 

and community support). The revised 

selection criteria replace the criteria in 

current §§ 645.31(b) and 645.31(d)(2). 

In addition, the application will 

describe the procedures an unsuccessful 

applicant must follow to request a 

second review of its application. Under 

the regulations, only those applicants in 

the ‘‘funding band’’ will be eligible to 

request a second review. As described 

in the final regulations, the Department 

will notify an unsuccessful applicant in 

writing as to the status of its application 

and the ‘‘funding band’’ for the second 

review and provide copies of the peer 

reviewers’ evaluations of the application 

and the applicant’s PE scores, if 

applicable. The applicant will be given 

at least 15 calendar days after receiving 

notification that its application was not 

funded in which to submit a written 

request for a second review in 

accordance with the instructions and 

due date provided in the Secretary’s 

written notification. To be considered 

for a second review, an applicant will 

need to provide evidence demonstrating 

that the Department, an agent of the 

Department, or a peer reviewer made a 

technical, administrative or scoring 

error in the processing or review of the 

application. The applicant, however, 

will not be permitted to submit any 

additional data or information related to 

the criteria used to evaluate the quality 

of the application that was not included 

in its original application. 

The Department does not expect these 

changes to the selection criteria to 

increase an applicant’s paperwork 

burden. However, we estimate that 

approximately two percent of the 

applications received under each 

competition for UB grants will score 

within the ‘‘funding band.’’ For each 

applicant in the ‘‘funding band’’ that 

requests a second review, we estimate 

an additional burden of two hours, 

which includes the time an applicant 

would need to review the peer 

reviewers’ evaluations and, if 

applicable, the PE assessment and 

submit a written request for a second 

review. This will result in a total burden 

increase of 80 hours for the revised 

application, which will be reflected in 

a new OMB Control Number 1840– 

NEW4. 

A separate 30-day Federal Register 

notice will be published to solicit public 

comment on the new application form 

to be used for the next competition for 

new UB grants currently scheduled for 

fall 2011. 

Sections 646.11, 646.21 and 646.24

(SSS)—The assurances and other 

information an applicant must include 

in an application, the selection criteria 

the Secretary uses to evaluate an 

application for a new grant and the 

second review process for unsuccessful 

applicants. 

The final SSS regulations amend the 

selection criteria the Secretary uses to 

evaluate an application for a new grant 

to address statutory changes resulting 

from the HEOA and add the statutory 

requirement that an applicant include in 

its application a description of its efforts 

in providing participants with sufficient 

financial assistance. Further, section 

402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as amended 

by the HEOA, has added requirements 

for a formal second review process for 

unsuccessful applicants. Therefore, the 

final regulations include a new section 

that establishes processes and 

procedures for a second review of 

unsuccessful applications. The new 

application will include the changes to 

the selection criteria and describe the 

processes and procedures for the second 

review of unsuccessful applications. 

The HEOA made changes to the 

outcome criteria. To better align the 

selection criteria with these statutory 

changes and current practice, we 

revised § 646.21(b) (Objectives). In 

addition, we have revised § 646.11 to 

include the requirement that the 

applicant discuss in its application its 

efforts to provide participants sufficient 

financial assistance. 

The application for SSS grants will 

describe the procedures an unsuccessful 

applicant must follow to request a 

second review of its application. Under 

the SSS regulations, only those 

applicants in the ‘‘funding band’’ are 

eligible to request a second review. As 

described in the regulations, the 

Department will notify an unsuccessful 

applicant in writing as to the status of 

its application and the ‘‘funding band’’ 

for the second review and provide 

copies of the peer reviewers’ evaluations 

of the application and the applicant’s PE 

scores, if applicable. The applicant will 

be given at least 15 calendar days after 

receiving notification that its 

application was not funded in which to 

submit a written request for a second 

review in accordance with the 

instructions and due date provided in 

the Secretary’s written notification. To 

be considered for a second review, an 

applicant must provide evidence 

demonstrating that the Department, an 

agent of the Department, or a peer 

reviewer made a technical, 

administrative, or scoring error in the 

processing or review of the application. 

The applicant, however, will not be 

permitted to submit any additional data 

or information related to the criteria 

used to evaluate the quality of the 

application that was not included in its 

original application. 

The Department does not expect the 

changes to the SSS selection criteria or 

the assurances that an applicant must 

provide in its application will increase 

an applicant’s paperwork burden. 

However, we estimate that 

approximately two percent of the 

applications received under each 

competition for SSS grants will score 

within the ‘‘funding band’’ and be 

eligible for a second review. For each 

applicant in the ‘‘funding band’’ that 

requests a second review, we estimate 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65762 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

an additional burden of two hours, 

which includes the time an applicant 

would need to review the peer 

reviewers’ evaluations and, if 

applicable, the PE assessment and 

submit a written request for a second 

review. This will result in a total burden 

increase of 66 hours for the revised 

application, which will be reflected in 

a new OMB Control Number 1840– 

NEW5. 

A separate 30-day Federal Register 

notice will be published to solicit public 

comment on the new application form 

to be used for the next competition for 

new SSS grants currently scheduled for 

fall 2014. 

Sections 647.21 and 647.24 (McNair)— 

Selection criteria the Secretary uses to 

evaluate an application for a new grant 

and the second review process for 

unsuccessful applicants. 

The final McNair regulations amend 

the selection criteria the Secretary uses 

to evaluate an application for a new 

grant to address statutory changes 

resulting from the HEOA. Further, 

section 402A(c)(8)(C) of the HEA, as 

amended by the HEOA, added 

requirements for a formal second review 

final for unsuccessful applicants. 

Therefore, the final McNair regulations 

establish processes and procedures for a 

second review of unsuccessful 

applications. The new application will 

describe the changes to the selection 

criteria and the processes and 

procedures for the second review of 

unsuccessful applications. 

The HEOA made changes to the 

outcome criteria. To better align the 

selection criteria for McNair with these 

statutory changes and current practice, 

we revised § 647.21(b) (Objectives). 

In addition, the McNair grant 

application will describe the procedures 

an unsuccessful applicant must follow 

to request a second review of its 

application. Under the final regulations, 

only those applicants in the ‘‘funding 

band’’ will be eligible to request a 

second review. As described in the final 

regulations, the Department will notify 

an unsuccessful applicant in writing as 

to the status of its application and the 

‘‘funding band’’ for the second review 

and provide copies of the peer 

reviewers’ evaluations of the application 

and the applicant’s PE scores, if 

applicable. The applicant will be given 

at least 15 calendar days after receiving 

notification that its application was not 

funded in which to submit a written 

request for a second review in 

accordance with the instructions and 

due date provided in the Secretary’s 

written notification. To be considered 

for a second review, an applicant will 

need to provide evidence demonstrating 

that the Department, an agent of the 

Department, or a peer reviewer made a 

technical, administrative or scoring 

error in the processing or review of the 

application. The applicant, however, 

will not be permitted to submit any 

additional data or information related to 

the criteria used to evaluate the quality 

of the application that was not included 

in its original application. 

The Department does not expect the 

changes to the selection criteria for the 

McNair program to increase an 

applicant’s paperwork burden. 

However, we estimate that 

approximately two percent of the 

applications received under each 

competition for McNair grants will score 

within the ‘‘funding band.’’ For each 

applicant in the ‘‘funding band’’ that 

requests a second review, we estimate 

an additional burden of two hours, 

which includes the time an applicant 

would need to review the peer 

reviewers’ evaluations and, if 

applicable, the PE assessment and 

submit a written request for a second 

review. This will result in a total burden 

increase of 16 hours for the revised 

application, which will be reflected in 

a new OMB Control Number 1840– 

NEW6. A separate 30-day Federal 

Register notice will be published to 

solicit public comment on the new 

application form for the next 

competition for new McNair grants 

currently scheduled for winter 2012. 

Section 642.22 (Training)—How does 

the Secretary evaluate prior experience? 

The HEA does not establish specific 

outcome criteria for the Training 

program; the program outcome criteria 

for evaluating a grantee’s PE are 

established in the regulations. 

Under the final regulations for the 

Training program, we will award PE 

points for each criterion by determining 

whether the grantee met or exceeded 

applicable project objectives. This 

determination will be based on the 

information the grantee submits in its 

APRs. The regulations amend the PE 

criteria the Secretary uses to award PE 

points as follows. 

For Training (Newly redesignated 

§ 642.20 and 642.22), we clarified the PE 

criteria and updated the regulations to 

reflect the maximum number of PE 

points a Training program grantee may 

earn. The maximum number of points 

changes from 8 points to 15 points. 

The burden hour estimate associated 

with this APR is reported under OMB 

Control Number 1894–0003, the 

Department’s generic performance 

report Standard 524B form. The 

Department does not expect the changes 

reflected in this provision to increase 

burden. 

Sections 643.22 and 643.32 (TS)—How 

does the Secretary evaluate prior 

experience? and New recordkeeping 

requirement. 

Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as 

amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 

HEOA, provides specific outcome 

criteria to be used to determine an 

entity’s PE of high quality service 

delivery and for the purpose of 

reporting annually to Congress on the 

performance of the TS program. Prior to 

the enactment of the HEOA, the PE 

criteria were established only in the 

regulations. 

Under the final TS regulations, we 

will award PE points for each criterion 

by determining whether the grantee met 

or exceeded applicable project 

objectives. This determination will be 

based on the information the grantee 

submits in its APRs. The regulations 

amend the criteria the Secretary uses to 

award PE points. 

The final TS regulations amend the 

PE criteria to address statutory changes 

resulting from the HEOA. The new 

statutory outcome and PE criteria for TS 

require grantees to report on: (1) 

Secondary school persistence of 

participants; (2) secondary school 

graduation of participants with regular 

secondary school diploma; (3) 

secondary school graduation of 

participants in a rigorous secondary 

school program of study; (4) the 

postsecondary enrollment of 

participants; and (5) the postsecondary 

completion of participants. 

We also amended the recordkeeping 

requirements in § 643.32(c) to require 

that a TS grantee, to the extent 

practicable, keep a record of any 

services its participants receive during 

the project year from another Federal 

TRIO program or other federally funded 

program serving similar populations. 

Currently one APR form is used for 

both the TS and EOC programs. Because 

of the changes to TS, the Department 

plans to develop a new APR for TS. The 

Department expects the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for TS to 

increase the reporting burden for this 

new data collection to 16 hours for each 

grantee. This will result in a total 

burden increase of 7,520 hours for the 

new APR, which will be reflected in a 

new OMB Control Number 1840–NEW7. 

A separate 60-day Federal Register 

notice followed by a 30-day Federal 

Register notice will be published to 

solicit public comment on the new APR 

form several months prior to its first use 

in fall 2012. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65763 

Sections 644.22 and 644.32 (EOC)— 

How does the Secretary evaluate prior 

experience? and New recordkeeping 

requirement. 

Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as 

amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 

HEOA, provides specific outcome 

criteria to be used to determine an 

entity’s PE of high quality service 

delivery and for the purpose of 

reporting annually to Congress on the 

performance of the EOC program. Prior 

to the HEOA, the PE criteria were 

established only in the regulations. 

Under the final EOC regulations, we 

will award PE points for each criterion 

by determining whether the grantee met 

or exceeded applicable project 

objectives. This determination will be 

based on the information the grantee 

submits in its APRs. The final 

regulations amend the criteria the 

Secretary uses to award PE points. 

We also amended the recordkeeping 

requirements in § 644.32(c) to require 

that an EOC grantee, to the extent 

practicable, keep a record of any 

services its participants receive during 

the project year from another Federal 

TRIO program or other federally funded 

program serving similar populations. 

The new statutory PE criteria are 

similar to the current regulatory PE 

criteria for the EOC program (see current 

§ 644.22); therefore, the Department 

does not expect the changes in § 644.22 

to increase the burden on an EOC 

grantee. However, the Department 

expects the new recordkeeping 

requirements for EOC to increase the 

reporting burden by 2 hours per grantee 

(248 total hours). However, when a new 

TS APR is developed, the current 

TS/EOC form will not be used by TS 

grantees; therefore, we expect a burden 

decrease for this data collection of 2,820 

hours; therefore, the net reduction in 

burden hours will be 2,572, which will 

be reflected in a new OMB Control 

Number 1840–NEW8. 

A separate 60-day Federal Register 

notice followed by a 30-day Federal 

Register notice will be published to 

solicit public comment on the new APR 

form several months prior to its first use 

in fall 2012. 

Sections 645.32 and 645.43 (UB)— 

How does the Secretary evaluate prior 

experience? and New recordkeeping 

requirement. 

Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as 

amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 

HEOA, provides specific outcome 

criteria to be used to determine an 

entity’s PE of high quality service 

delivery and for the purpose of 

reporting annually to Congress on the 

performance of the UB program. Prior to 

the enactment of the HEOA, the PE 

criteria were established only in the 

regulations. 

Under the final regulations for the UB 

program, we award PE points for each 

criterion by determining whether the 

grantee met or exceeded applicable 

project objectives. This determination 

will be based on the information the 

grantee submits in its APR. The final 

regulations amend the criteria the 

Secretary uses to award PE points. 

Revisions in the PE criteria are 

needed to address statutory changes 

resulting from the HEOA. The new 

statutory outcome PE criteria for UB 

require grantees to report on: (1) The 

academic performance of participants; 

(2) secondary school retention and 

graduation of participants; (3) 

completion by participants of a rigorous 

secondary school program of study; (4) 

the postsecondary enrollment of 

participants; and (5) the postsecondary 

completion of participants. 

We also amended the recordkeeping 

requirements in § 645.43(c) to require 

that an UB grantee, to the extent 

practicable, keep a record of any 

services its participants receive during 

the project year from another Federal 

TRIO program or other federally funded 

program serving similar populations. 

The Department expects the new 

requirements that a grantee report on 

the completion of a rigorous secondary 

school program of study and 

postsecondary completion of 

participants and the new recordkeeping 

requirements to increase the reporting 

burden for this data collection by eight 

hours for each grantee. This will result 

in a total burden increase of 9,144 hours 

for the revised APR, which will be 

reflected in a new OMB Control Number 

1840–NEW9. 

A separate 60-day Federal Register 

notice followed by a 30-day Federal 

Register notice will be published to 

solicit public comment on the new APR 

form several months prior to its first use 

in fall 2013. 

Sections 646.22, 646.32 and 646.33

(SSS)—How does the Secretary evaluate 

prior experience? New recordkeeping 

requirement and Addition of the 

statutory matching requirements for 

grantees that use Federal SSS funds for 

Grant aid. 

Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as 

amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 

HEOA, provides specific outcome 

criteria to be used to determine an 

entity’s prior experience of high quality 

service delivery and for the purpose of 

reporting annually to Congress on the 

performance of the SSS program. Prior 

to the HEOA, the PE criteria were 

established only in the regulations. 

Under the final regulations for the 

SSS program, we award PE points for 

each criterion by determining whether 

the grantee met or exceeded applicable 

project objectives. This determination 

will be based on the information the 

grantee submits in its APR. The final 

regulations amend the criteria the 

Secretary uses to award PE points. 

Revisions in the PE criteria are 

needed to address statutory changes 

resulting from the HEOA. The statutory 

outcome PE criteria for the SSS program 

requires grantees to report on 

baccalaureate degree competition for 

participants at four-year institutions and 

certificate and associate degree 

completion and transfers to four-year 

institutions for participants at two-year 

institutions. The Department expects 

that these requirements for tracking the 

academic progress of SSS participants 

through degree completion to increase 

the reporting burden by six hours for 

each grantee. 

We have amended the recordkeeping 

requirements in § 646.32(c) to require 

that a SSS grantee, to the extent 

practicable, keep a record of any 

services its participants receive during 

the project year from another Federal 

TRIO program or other federally funded 

program serving similar populations. 

We estimated that this new 

recordkeeping requirement will increase 

the reporting burden by two hours per 

grantee. 

We also added new § 646.33 to 

incorporate the statutory provisions that 

permit a grantee to use Federal grant 

funds to provide grant aid to students. 

Many grantees that use program funds 

for grant aid must provide a non-Federal 

match, in cash, of not less than 33 

percent of the Federal funds used for 

grant aid. A grant recipient that is an 

institution of higher education eligible 

to receive funds under part A or B of 

title III or title V of the HEA is not 

required to match the Federal funds 

used for grant aid. For those grantees 

that are required to provide matching 

funds for grant aid (estimated at 50 

percent of SSS grantees), we estimate 

that these regulations will increase the 

burden by two hours per grantee. 

The combined increase will result in 

a total burden increase of 9,234 hours 

for the revised APR, which will be 

reflected in a new OMB Control Number 

1840–NEW10. A separate 60-day 

Federal Register notice followed by a 

30-day Federal Register notice will be 

published to solicit public comment on 

the new APR form several months prior 

to its first use in fall 2011. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65764 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Sections 647.22 and 647.32 (McNair)— 

How does the Secretary evaluate prior 

experience? and New recordkeeping 

requirement. 

Section 402A(f) of the HEA, as 

amended by section 403(a)(5) of the 

HEOA, provides specific outcome 

criteria for the McNair program to be 

used to determine an entity’s PE of high 

quality service delivery and for the 

purpose of reporting annually to 

Congress on the performance of the 

McNair program. Prior to the HEOA, the 

PE criteria were established only in the 

regulations. 

Under the final regulations for the 

McNair program, we award PE points 

for each criterion by determining 

whether the grantee met or exceeded 

applicable project objectives. This 

determination will be based on the 

information the grantee submits in its 

APR. The regulations amend the criteria 

the Secretary uses to award PE points. 

The Department expects the new 

statutory requirements that include 

long-term tracking of the academic 

progress of McNair participants through 

completion of the doctoral degree will 

increase the reporting burden for this 

data collection by four hours per 

grantee. We have also amended the 

recordkeeping requirements in 

§ 647.32(c) to require that a McNair 

grantee, to the extent practicable, keep 

a record of any services its participants 

receive during the project year from 

another Federal TRIO program or other 

federally funded program serving 

similar populations. We estimated that 

this new recordkeeping requirement 

will increase the reporting burden by 

two hours per grantee. 

The combined increase will result in 

a total burden increase of 1,200 hours 

for the revised APR, which will be 

reflected in a new OMB Control Number 

1840–NEW11. A separate 60-day 

Federal Register notice followed by a 

30-day Federal Register notice will be 

published to solicit public comment on 

the new APR form several months prior 

to its first use in either fall 2013. 

Part 694—GEAR UP 

Sections 694.7, 694.8 and 694.9— 

Matching Requirements for GEAR UP 

grants 

The final regulations provide that an 

applicant for GEAR UP funding must 

state in its application the percentage of 

the cost of the GEAR UP project that the 

applicant will provide from non-Federal 

funds. The final regulations also provide 

that the Secretary may waive a portion 

of the matching requirement in response 

to a grantee’s written request for a 

waiver of the match. The final 

regulations further provide the 

conditions that must be met for the 

Secretary to approve a request to waive 

a portion of the matching requirement 

and that if the Secretary grants a 

tentative waiver to a new grantee for the 

full project period because of a preexisting or ongoing economic hardship, 

the recipient will need to submit 

documentation every two years to 

demonstrate that conditions have not 

changed. 

The final regulations will provide that 

an applicant for GEAR UP funding must 

state in its application the percentage of 

the cost of the GEAR UP project that the 

application will provide from nonFederal funds. We estimate that this 

requirement will increase burden by 

12.5 hours for each GEAR UP applicant 

in OMB Control Number 1840–New12, 

for a total burden increase of 6,250 

hours, based on 500 applicants. A 

separate 30-day Federal Register notice 

will be published to solicit public 

comment on the revised application 

form prior to its usage, currently 

estimated to be spring 2011. 

The final regulations also will provide 

that the Secretary may waive a portion 

of the matching requirement in response 

to a written request for a waiver of the 

match. This written request can be 

included in the application or submitted 

separately. If granted a waiver of the 

matching requirement, GEAR UP 

grantees will spend significantly less 

time collecting and documenting 

matching funds. We estimate that the 

final changes will decrease burden by 

500 hours for each GEAR UP grantee in 

OMB Control Number 1840–NEW13, 

resulting in a total burden decrease of 

7,860 hours, and likewise in OMB 

Control Number 1840–NEW14, resulting 

in a total burden decrease of 5,625. A 

separate 60-day Federal Register notice 

followed by a 30-day Federal Register 

notice will be published to solicit public 

comment on the revised APR and FPR 

forms prior to their usage, currently 

estimated to be spring 2012. 

Section 694.16(c)—Scholarship 

Reporting Requirements 

The final regulations require grantees 

whose initial GEAR UP grant awards 

were made on or after August 14, 2008 

and grantees whose initial GEAR UP 

grant awards were made prior to August 

14, 2008, but who, pursuant to 

§ 694.12(b)(2), elect to make 

scholarships pursuant to the HEOA 

requirements, to furnish information as 

the Secretary may require on the 

amount of any Federal and non-Federal 

funds reserved and held for GEAR UP 

scholarships and the disbursement of 

these scholarship funds. Reporting will 

be required until these funds are fully 

expended or, if Federal funds, returned 

to the Secretary. 

We estimate that these final changes 

will increase burden by 400 hours for 

each GEAR UP grantee in OMB Control 

Number 1840–NEW13, resulting in a 

total burden increase of 8,760, and by 

800 hours for each grantee in OMB 

Control Number 1840–NEW14, resulting 

in a total burden increase of 6,925. A 

separate 60-day Federal Register notice 

followed by a 30-day Federal Register 

notice will be published to solicit public 

comment on the revised APR and FPR 

forms prior to their usage, currently 

estimated to be spring 2012. 

Section 694.19—What priorities does 

the Secretary establish for a GEAR UP 

grant? 

The final regulations will provide that 

the Secretary awards competitive 

preference priority points to an eligible 

applicant for a State grant that has 

carried out a successful State GEAR UP 

grant prior to August 14, 2008 and has 

a prior, demonstrated commitment to 

early intervention leading to college 

access through collaboration and 

replication of successful strategies. 

Applicants will respond to these 

priorities as part of their applications in 

OMB Control Number 1840–NEW12, 

which will increase total burden by 

6,250 hours. A separate 30-day Federal 

Register notice will be published to 

solicit public comment on the revised 

application form prior to its usage, 

currently estimated to be spring 2011. 

Section 694.20—When may a GEAR UP 

grantee provide services to students 

attending an institution of higher 

education? 

Under the final regulations, GEAR UP 

applicants will be permitted to request 

in their applications a seventh year of 

funding so that the State or Partnership 

may continue to provide services to 

students through their first year of 

attendance at an institution of higher 

education. 

We estimate that the final changes 

will increase burden by 300 hours in 

OMB Control Number 1840–NEW12 for 

each GEAR UP applicant for a total 

burden increase of 150,000 hours. A 

separate 30-day Federal Register notice 

will be published to solicit public 

comment on the revised application 

form prior to its usage, currently 

estimated to be spring 2011. 

Consistent with this discussion, the 

following chart describes the sections of 

the final regulations involving 

information collections, the information 

being collected, and the collections that 

the Department will submit to OMB for 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65765 

approval and public comment under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

Regulation 

section Information section Collection OMB control number 

Sections 642.21 

and 642.25 

(Training).

The final regulations amend the selection criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a Training grant. 

The final regulations add a new section that establishes 

processes and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications.

1840–NEW1 (Training This is a new collection. The final regulations will affect applicant burden in two ways. First, the 

elimination of the Need selection criterion reduces the 

amount of information an applicant must include in its application, resulting in an estimated burden reduction of 240 

hours. 

Additionally, the final regulatory processes and procedures for 

a second review of unsuccessful applications will lead to an 

estimated burden increase of 12 hours (or, an estimated 

two burden hour increase for each of the estimated six applicants that will fall within an estimated 10 percent funding 

band under the second review process). 

In total, there will be an estimated decrease in burden of 228 

hours. 

Sections 643.21 

and 643.24 

(TS).

The final regulations amend the selection criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a TS grant. The 

final regulations also add a new section that establishes 

processes and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications.

1840–NEW2 (TS) This will be a new collection. The Department has already solicited public comments in a separate 

30-day Federal Register notice that was published August 

5, 2010 on the new application process that will be used 

for the FY 2011 competition for new TS grants; the estimated deadline date for receiving applications is December 

2010. The Department does not expect that changes to the 

selection criteria will change an applicant’s paperwork burden. The final regulatory processes and procedures for a 

second review of unsuccessful applications will lead to an 

estimated burden increase of 60 hours (or, an estimated 

two burden hour increase for each of the estimated 30 applicants that will fall within an estimated two percent funding band under the second review process). 

In total, there will be an estimated burden increase of 60 

hours. 

Sections 644.21 

and 644.24 

(EOC).

The final regulations amend the selection criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for an EOC grant. 

The final regulations add a new section that establishes 

processes and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications.

1840–NEW3 (EOC) This will 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 winter 2011. 

The Department does not expect that the final amendments 

to the selection criteria will change an applicant’s paperwork burden. The final regulatory processes and procedures for a second review of unsuccessful applications will 

lead to an estimated burden increase of 20 hours (or, an 

estimated two burden hour increase for each of the estimated 10 applicants that will fall within an estimated two 

percent funding band under the second review process). 

In total, there will be an estimated burden increase of 20 

hours. 

Sections 645.31 

and 645.35 

(UB).

The final regulations amend the selection criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a UB grant. The 

final regulations also add a new section that establishes 

processes and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications.

1840–NEW4 (UB) This will 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 2011. 

The Department does not expect that final amendments to 

the selection criteria will change an applicant’s paperwork 

burden. The final regulatory processes and procedures for 

a second review of unsuccessful applications will lead to an 

estimated burden increase of 80 hours (or, an estimated 

two burden hour increase for each of the estimated 40 applicants that will fall within an estimated two percent funding band under the second review process). 

In total, there will be an estimated burden increase of 80 

hours. 

Sections 646.11; 

646.21 and 

646.24 (SSS).

The final regulations 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 final regulations also 

add a new section that establishes processes and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications.

1840–NEW5 (SSS) This will 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 2014. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65766 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulation 

section Information section Collection OMB control number 

The Department does not expect that amendments to the selection criteria or the assurance that an applicant must describe in its application regarding its efforts to provide participants with sufficient financial assistance will change an 

applicant’s paperwork burden. The final regulatory processes and procedures for a second review of unsuccessful 

applications will lead to an estimated burden increase of 66 

hours (or, an estimated two burden hour increase for each 

of the estimated 33 applicants that will fall within an estimated two percent funding band under the second review 

process). 

In total, there will be an estimated burden increase of 66 

hours. 

Sections 647.21 

and 647.24 

(McNair).

The final regulations amend the selection criteria the Secretary uses to evaluate an application for a McNair grant. 

The regulations also add a new section that establishes 

processes and procedures for a review of unsuccessful applications.

1840–NEW6 (McNair) This will 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 winter 2012. The Department 

does not expect that amendments to the selection criteria 

will change an applicant’s paperwork burden. The final regulatory processes and procedures for a second review of 

unsuccessful applications will lead to an estimated burden 

increase of 16 hours (or, an estimated two burden hour increase for each of the estimated eight applicants that will 

fall within an estimated two percent funding band under the 

second review process). 

In total, there will be an estimated burden increase of 16 

hours. 

Section 642.22 

(Training).

The final regulations amend the PE criteria the Secretary 

uses to award PE points. Under the final regulations, we 

award PE points for each criterion by determining whether 

the grantee met or exceeded applicable project objectives. 

This determination will be based on the information the 

grantee submits in its annual performance report.

1894–0003 (Training) The Department will continue to use 

the Department’s generic performance report for the Training program. The final changes reflected in this provision 

are editorial in nature. There will be no increase in estimated burden hours. 

Sections 643.22 

(TS) and 

643.32.

The final regulations amend the PE criteria the Secretary 

uses to award PE points. Under the final regulations we 

award PE points for each criterion by determining whether 

the grantee met or exceeded applicable project objectives. 

This determination will be based on the information the 

grantee submits in its annual performance report.

1840–NEW7 (TS) This will be a new collection. A separate 

60-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit 

comments on this form following the next competition for 

new TS grants. The revised APR is needed for fall 2012 

data collection. The final regulations will increase grantee 

data collection and reporting requirements in two ways. 

First, the final regulatory amendments to the PE criteria, 

which address statutory changes that expand outcome and 

PE criteria for TS grantees to include such measures as 

the postsecondary completion of participants, are expected 

to increase grantees’ reporting burden. 

The final regulations also amend the recordkeeping requirements for TS Additionally, the final regulatory amendments to recordkeeping requirements will require that a TS grantee document the services a student, who is served by more than 

one TRIO or other federally funded program, is receiving 

from another program during the project year. This is a 

new data collection that also will increase grantees’ burden 

hours. The Department expects these two changes to result in an increase of 16 burden hours per grantee. 

In total, for 470 grantees, there will be an estimated burden 

increase of 7,520 hours. 

Sections 644.22 

and 644.32 

(EOC).

The final regulations amend the PE criteria the Secretary 

uses to award PE points. Under the final regulations we 

award PE points for each criterion by determining whether 

the grantee met or exceeded applicable project objectives. 

This determination will be based on the information the 

grantee submits in its annual performance report.

1840–NEW8 (EOC) This will be a new collection. A separate 

60-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit 

comments on this form following the next competition for 

new EOC grants.The revised APR is needed for fall 2012 

data collection. 

The final regulations also amend the recordkeeping requirements for EOC.Because the new statutory PE criteria are similar to the current regulatory PE criteria, the Department does not expect 

the changes to affect the burden on EOC grantees. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65767 

Regulation 

section Information section Collection OMB control number 

However, the final regulatory amendments to the recordkeeping requirements will require that an EOC grantee document the services a student, who is served by more than 

one TRIO or other federally funded program, is receiving 

from another program during the project year. This is a 

new data collection that will increase grantee’s burden 

hours by two hours per grantee (248 total hours for 124 

grantees). 

However, when a new TS APR is developed, the current TS/ 

EOC form will not be used by TS grantees; therefore, we 

expect a burden decrease for this data collection of 2,820 

hours; the net reduction in burden hours will be 2,572, 

which will be reflected in a new OMB Control Number 

1840–NEW8. 

Sections 645.32 

and 645.43 

(UB).

The final regulations amend the PE criteria the Secretary 

uses to award PE points. Under the final regulations we 

award PE points for each criterion by determining whether 

the grantee met or exceeded applicable project objectives. 

This determination will be based on the information the 

grantee submits in its annual performance report.

1840–NEW9 (UB) This will be a new collection. A separate 

60-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit 

comments on this form following the next competition for 

new UB grants.The revised APR is needed for fall 2013 

data collection. 

The final regulations also amend the recordkeeping requirements for UB.The final 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 changes to result in an increase of six burden hours 

per grantee. 

The final regulatory amendments to recordkeeping requirements will require that a UB grantee document the services 

a student, who is served by more than one TRIO or other 

federally funded program, is receiving from another program during the project year. This is a new data collection 

that also will increase a grantee’s burden by an estimated 

two hours. 

In total, there will be an estimated burden increase of eight 

hours per grantee for a total increase of 9,144 hours for 

1,143 grantees. 

Sections 646.22, 

646.32 and 

646.33 (SSS).

The final regulations amend the PE criteria the Secretary 

uses to award PE points. Under the final regulations we 

award PE points for each criterion by determining whether 

the grantee met or exceeded applicable project objectives. 

This determination will be based on the information the 

grantee submits in its annual performance report.

1840–NEW10 (SSS) This will be a new collection. A separate 

60-day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit 

comments on this form following the next competition for 

new SSS grants. The revised APR is needed for fall 2011 

data collection. The final regulations will increase grantee 

data collection and reporting requirements in three ways. 

The final regulations amend the recordkeeping requirements 

for SSS and also add a new section on matching requirements for SSS.

First, the regulatory amendments to the PE criteria, which address statutory requirements for tracking the academic 

progress of SSS participants through degree completion, 

will increase the reporting burden by six hours for each 

grantee. 

Second, the final regulatory amendments to recordkeeping 

requirements will require that a SSS grantee document the 

services a student, who is served by more than one TRIO 

or other federally funded program, is receiving from another 

program during the project year. This is a new data collection that also will increase a grantee’s burden by an estimated two hours. 

Additionally, for those grantees that are required to provide 

matching funds for grant aid (estimated at 50 percent of 

SSS grantees), the final regulations will increase burden by 

an estimated two hours per grantee. 

In total, there will be an estimated burden increase of 9,234 

hours for 1,026 grantees. 

Sections 647.22 

and 647.32 

(McNair).

The final regulations amend the PE criteria the Secretary 

uses to award PE points. Under the final regulations we 

award PE points for each criterion by determining whether 

the grantee met or exceeded applicable project objectives. 

This determination will be based on the information the 

grantee submits in its annual performance report.

1840–NEW11 (McNair) This will be a new collection. A separate 60-day Federal Register notice will be published to 

solicit comments on this form following the next competition 

for new McNair grants. The revised APR is needed for fall 

2013 data collection. The regulatory amendments to the PE 

criteria, which address statutory requirements for long-term 

tracking of the academic progress of McNair participants 

through completion of the doctoral degree, will increase the 

reporting burden by four hours for each grantee. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65768 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulation 

section Information section Collection OMB control number 

Further, the final regulatory amendments to recordkeeping requirements will require that a McNair grantee document the 

services a student, who is served by more than one TRIO 

or other federally funded program, is receiving from another 

program during the project year. This is a new data collection that also will increase a grantee’s burden by an estimated two hours. 

In total, there will be an estimated burden increase of six 

hours per grantee for a total of 1,200 hours for 200 grantees. 

694.7, 694.8, 

and 694.9 

GEAR UP.

The final regulations will provide that an applicant for GEAR 

UP funding must state in its application the percentage of 

the cost of the GEAR UP project that the application will 

provide from non-Federal funds.

1840–NEW12 This will 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 spring 2011. 

The final regulations also will provide that the Secretary may 

waive a portion of the matching requirement in response to 

a written request for a waiver of the match. This written request can be included in the application or submitted separately.

In total, there will be an estimated burden increase of 12.5 

hours per applicant for an estimated 500 applicants. There 

will be an estimated burden increase of 6,250 hours. 

The final regulations will also provide the conditions that must 

be met for the Secretary to approve a request to waive a 

portion of the matching requirement.

1840–NEW13 This will be a new collection. A separate 60- 

day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit 

comments on this form following the next competition for 

new GEAR UP grants. If granted a waiver of the matching 

requirement, GEAR UP grantees will spend significantly 

less time collecting and documenting matching funds. In 

total, there will be an estimated burden decrease of 46.5 

hours per grantee for an estimated 169 grantees. There will 

be an estimated burden decrease of 7,860 hours. 

1840–NEW14 This will be a new collection. A separate 60- 

day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit 

comments on this form following the next competition for 

new GEAR UP grants. 

The final regulations provide that an applicant for GEAR UP 

funding must state in its application the percentage of the 

cost of the GEAR UP project that the applicant will provide 

from non-Federal funds. The final regulations also provide 

that the Secretary may waive a portion of the matching requirement in response to a grantee’s written request for a 

waiver of the match. The final regulations further provide 

the conditions that must be met for the Secretary to approve a request to waive a portion of the matching requirement and that if the Secretary grants a tentative waiver to a 

new grantee for the full project period because of a pre-existing or ongoing economic hardship, the recipient will need 

to submit documentation every two years to demonstrate 

that conditions have not changed. In total, there will be an 

estimated burden decrease of 56.25 per grantee for an estimated 100 grantees.There will be an estimated burden 

decrease of 5,625 hours. 

694.16 .............. The final regulations will 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 to use the § 694.14 requirements (rather than the § 694.13 requirements) 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 will be a new collection. A separate 60- 

day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit 

comments on this form following the next competition for 

new GEAR UP grants. In total, there will be an estimated 

burden increase of 87.6 hours per grantee for an estimated 

100 grantees. There will be an estimated burden increase 

of 8,760 hours. 

1840–NEW14 This will be a new collection. A separate 60- 

day Federal Register notice will be published to solicit 

comments on this form following the next competition for 

new GEAR grants. There will be an estimated burden increase of 6,925 hours. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65769 

Regulation 

section Information section Collection OMB control number 

The final regulations require grantees whose initial GEAR UP 

grant awards were made on or after August 14, 2008 and 

grantees whose initial GEAR UP grant awards were made 

prior to August 14, 2008, to provide information as the Secretary may require on the amount of any Federal and nonFederal funds reserved and held for GEAR UP scholarships and the disbursement of these scholarship funds. Reporting will be required until these funds are fully expended 

or, if Federal funds, returned to the Secretary. 

694.19 .............. The final 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 will 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 spring 2011. In total, there will be 

an estimated burden increase of 5 hours per applicant for 

an estimated 43 applicants. There will be an estimated burden increase of 215 hours. 

The final regulations will provide that the Secretary awards 

competitive preference priority points to an eligible applicant for a State grant that has carried out a successful 

State GEAR UP grant prior to August 14, 2008 and has a 

prior, demonstrated commitment to early intervention leading to college access through collaboration and replication 

of successful strategies. 

694.20 .............. The final regulations permit GEAR UP applicants 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 will 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 spring 2011. In total, there will be 

an estimated burden increase of 300 hours for each applicant for an estimated 500 applicants. There will be an estimated burden increase of 150,000 hours. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is subject to the 

requirements of Executive Order 12372 

and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

The objective of the Executive order is 

to foster an intergovernmental 

partnership and a strengthened 

federalism by relying on processes 

developed by State and local 

governments for coordination and 

review of proposed Federal financial 

assistance. 

In accordance with the order, we 

intend this document to provide early 

notification of the Department’s specific 

plans and actions for these programs. 

Assessment of Educational Impact 

In accordance with section 411 of the 

General Education Provisions Act, 20 

U.S.C. 1221e–4, and based on our own 

review, we have determined that these 

final regulations do not require 

transmission of information that any 

other agency or authority of the United 

States gathers or makes available. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You can view this document, as well 

as all other Department of Education 

documents published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet 

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

news/fedregister. To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

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

index.html. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers HEP/CAMP: 84.141A, 84.149A; 

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

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

UP: 84.334A, 84.334S.) 

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Parts 206, 

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

Colleges and universities, 

Disadvantaged students, Educational 

programs, Discretionary grants, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Training. 

Dated: September 23, 2010. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary amends parts 

206, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, and 

694 of title 34 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 206—SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL 

PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WHOSE 

FAMILIES ARE ENGAGED IN MIGRANT 

AND OTHER SEASONAL 

FARMWORK—HIGH SCHOOL 

EQUIVALENCY PROGRAM AND 

COLLEGE ASSISTANCE MIGRANT 

PROGRAM 

■ 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). 

* * * * * 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65770 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 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: 

§ 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. In paragraph (b)(2)(iv), removing 

the word ‘‘student’’ and adding, in its 

place, the word ‘‘students’’. 

■ H. Redesignating paragraph (b)(2)(vi) 

as paragraph (b)(2)(vii). 

■ I. Adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(vi). 

■ J. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(b)(2)(vii), removing the words ‘‘support 

services’’, and adding, in their place, the 

words ‘‘essential supportive services 

(such as transportation and child care),’’. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65771 

(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. 

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–11(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 through 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 a disability’’, 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 a disability means a 

person who has a disability, as that term 

is defined in section 12102 of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (42 

U.S.C. 12101 et seq.). 

* * * * * 

Institution of higher education means 

an educational institution as defined in 

sections 101 and 102 of the Act. 

Leadership personnel means project 

directors, coordinators, and other 

individuals involved with the 

supervision and direction of projects 

funded under the Federal TRIO 

programs. 

Veteran means a person who— 

(1) Served on active duty as a member 

of the Armed Forces of the United States 

for a period of more than 180 days and 

was discharged or released under 

conditions other than dishonorable; 

(2) Served on active duty as a member 

of the Armed Forces of the United States 

and was discharged or released because 

of a service connected disability; 

(3) Was a member of a reserve 

component of the Armed Forces of the 

United States and was called to active 

duty for a period of more than 30 days; 

or 

(4) Was a member of a reserve 

component of the Armed Forces of the 

United States who served on active duty 

in support of a contingency operation 

(as that term is defined in section 

101(a)(13) of title 10, United States 

Code) on or after September 11, 2001. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., 1070a–11, 

1070(b), 1088, and 1141) 

17. Section 642.7 is added to subpart 

A of part 642 to read as follows: 

§ 642.7 How many applications may an 

eligible applicant submit? 

An applicant may submit more than 

one application for Training grants as 

long as each application describes a 

project that addresses a different 

absolute priority from § 642.24 that is 

designated in the Federal Register 

notice inviting applications. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3) 

18. Subpart B of part 642 is revised to 

read as follows: 

Subpart B—What Types of Projects 

and Activities Does the Secretary 

Assist Under This Program? 

Sec. 

642.10 What types of projects does the 

Secretary assist? 

642.11 What activities does the 

Secretary assist? 

642.12 What activities may a project 

conduct? 

Subpart B—What Types of Projects 

and Activities Does the Secretary 

Assist Under This Program? 

§ 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65772 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) The design and operation of model 

programs for projects funded under the 

Federal TRIO programs. 

(4) The use of appropriate educational 

technology in the operation of projects 

funded under the Federal TRIO 

programs. 

(5) Strategies for recruiting and 

serving hard-to-reach populations, 

including students who are limited 

English proficient, students from groups 

that are traditionally underrepresented 

in postsecondary education, students 

who are individuals with disabilities, 

students who are homeless children and 

youths, students who are foster care 

youth, or other disconnected students. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–17) 

§ 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 after the last paragraph in 

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 

at least the approved number of 

participants. 

(e) The Secretary evaluates the 

applicant’s PE on the basis of the 

following criteria: 

(1) (4 points) Number of participants. 

Whether the applicant provided training 

to no less than the approved number of 

participants. 

(2) Training objectives. Whether the 

applicant met or exceeded its objectives 

for: 

(i) (4 points) Assisting the participants 

in developing increased qualifications 

and skills to meet the needs of 

disadvantaged students. 

(ii) (4 points) Providing the 

participants with an increased 

knowledge and understanding of the 

Federal TRIO programs. 

(3) (3 points) Administrative 

requirements. Whether the applicant 

met all the administrative requirements 

under the terms of the expiring grant, 

including recordkeeping, reporting, and 

financial accountability. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1894–0003) 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11) 

■ 24. Newly redesignated § 642.23 is 

amended by revising the section 

heading to read as follows: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65773 

§ 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: 

(1) Basic skills instruction in reading, 

mathematics, written and oral 

communication, and study skills. 

(2) Counseling. 

(3) Assessment of student needs. 

(4) Academic tests and testing. 

(5) College and university admissions 

policies and procedures. 

(6) Cultural enrichment programs. 

(7) Career planning. 

(8) Tutorial programs. 

(9) Retention and graduation 

strategies. 

(10) Strategies for preparing students 

for doctoral studies. 

(11) Project evaluation. 

(12) Budget management. 

(13) Personnel management. 

(14) Reporting student and project 

performance. 

(15) Coordinating project activities 

with other available resources and 

activities. 

(16) General project management for 

new directors. 

(17) Statutory and regulatory 

requirements for the operation of 

projects funded under the Federal TRIO 

programs. 

(18) Assisting students in receiving 

adequate financial aid from programs 

assisted under title IV of the Act and 

from other programs. 

(19) The design and operation of 

model programs for projects funded 

under the Federal TRIO programs. 

(20) The use of appropriate 

educational technology in the operation 

of projects funded under the Federal 

TRIO programs. 

(21) Strategies for recruiting and 

serving hard to reach populations, 

including students who are limited 

English proficient, students from groups 

that are traditionally underrepresented 

in postsecondary education, students 

who are individuals with disabilities, 

students who are homeless children and 

youths, students who are foster care 

youth, or other disconnected students. 

(b) The Secretary annually funds 

training on the subjects listed in 

paragraphs (a)(17), (a)(18), (a)(19), 

(a)(20), and (a)(21) of this section. 

(c) The Secretary designates one or 

more of the training priorities from 

paragraph (a) of this section in the 

Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for the competition. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a– 

17) 

■ 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65774 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

section and whose application received 

a score within the funding band as 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section, may request a second review if 

the applicant demonstrates that the 

Department, the Department’s agent, or 

a peer reviewer made an administrative 

or scoring error as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(5) An applicant whose application 

was not funded after the first review as 

described in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section and whose application received 

a score within the funding band as 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section has at least 15 calendar days 

after receiving notification that its 

application was not funded in which to 

submit a written request for a second 

review in accordance with the 

instructions and due date provided in 

the Secretary’s written notification. 

(6) An applicant’s written request for 

a second review must be received by the 

Department or submitted electronically 

to a designated e-mail or Web address 

by the due date and time established by 

the Secretary. 

(7) If the Secretary determines that the 

Department or the Department’s agent 

made an administrative error that relates 

to the PE points awarded, as described 

in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the 

Secretary adjusts the applicant’s PE 

score to reflect the correct number of PE 

points. If the adjusted score assigned to 

the application would have resulted in 

funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds 

available, the Secretary funds the 

application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer 

review of applications described in 

paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

(8) If the Secretary determines that the 

Department, the Department’s agent or 

the peer reviewer made an 

administrative error that relates to the 

peer reviewers’ score(s), as described in 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the 

Secretary adjusts the applicant’s peer 

reviewers’ score(s) to correct the error. 

If the adjusted score assigned to the 

application would have resulted in 

funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds 

available, the Secretary funds the 

application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer 

review of applications described in 

paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

(9) If the Secretary determines that a 

peer reviewer made a scoring error, as 

described in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section, the Secretary convenes a second 

panel of peer reviewers in accordance 

with the requirements in section 

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

(10) The average of the peer 

reviewers’ scores from the second peer 

review are used in the second ranking 

of applications. The average score 

obtained from the second peer review 

panel is the final peer reviewer score for 

the application and will be used even if 

the second review results in a lower 

score for the application than that 

obtained in the initial review. 

(11) For applications in the funding 

band, the Secretary funds these 

applications in rank order based on 

adjusted scores and the available funds 

that have been set aside for the second 

review of applications. 

(d) Process for establishing a funding 

band. (1) For each competition, the 

Secretary establishes a funding band for 

the second review of applications. 

(2) The Secretary establishes the 

funding band for each competition 

based on the amount of funds the 

Secretary has set aside for the second 

review of applications. 

(3) The funding band is composed of 

those applications— 

(i) With a rank-order score before the 

second review that is below the lowest 

score of applications funded after the 

first review; and 

(ii) That would be funded if the 

Secretary had 150 percent of the funds 

that were set aside for the second review 

of applications for the competition. 

(e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary’s 

determination of whether the applicant 

has met the requirements for a second 

review and the Secretary’s decision on 

re-scoring of an application are final and 

not subject to further appeal or 

challenge. 

(2) An application that scored below 

the established funding band for the 

competition is not eligible for a second 

review. 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 1840– 

NEW1) 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11) 

■ 27. A new § 642.26 is added to subpart 

C of part 642 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 follow: 

§ 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: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65775 

■ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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’’. 

* * * * * 

■ 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 and 

economic literacy of the participants or 

the participants’ parents, including 

financial planning for postsecondary 

education. 

(b) A Talent Search project may 

provide services such as the following: 

(1) Academic tutoring, which may 

include instruction in reading, writing, 

study skills, mathematics, science, and 

other subjects. 

(2) Personal and career counseling or 

activities. 

(3) Information and activities 

designed to acquaint youth with the 

range of career options available to the 

youth. 

(4) Exposure to the campuses of 

institutions of higher education, as well 

as to cultural events, academic 

programs, and other sites or activities 

not usually available to disadvantaged 

youth. 

(5) Workshops and counseling for 

families of participants served. 

(6) Mentoring programs involving 

elementary or secondary school teachers 

or counselors, faculty members at 

institutions of higher education, 

students, or any combination of these 

persons. 

(7) Programs and activities as 

described in this section that are 

specially designed for participants who 

are limited English proficient, from 

groups that are traditionally 

underrepresented in postsecondary 

education, individuals with disabilities, 

homeless children and youths, foster 

care youth, or other disconnected 

participants. 

(8) Other activities designed to meet 

the purposes of the Talent Search 

Program in § 643.1. 

(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 through 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’’, ‘‘Individual with a 

disability’’, ‘‘Regular secondary school 

diploma’’, and ‘‘Rigorous secondary 

school program of study’’. 

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, which may 

include but is not limited to knowledge 

about— 

(1) Personal and family budget 

planning; 

(2) Understanding credit building 

principles to meet long-term and shortterm goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit 

scoring, negative impacts on credit 

scores); 

(3) Cost planning for postsecondary or 

postbaccalaureate education (e.g., 

spending, saving, personal budgeting); 

(4) College cost of attendance (e.g., 

public vs. private, tuition vs. fees, 

personal costs); 

(5) Financial assistance (e.g., searches, 

application processes, and differences 

between private and government loans, 

assistanceships); and 

(6) Assistance in completing the Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA). 

Foster care youth means youth who 

are in foster care or are aging out of the 

foster care system. 

* * * * * 

Homeless children and youth means 

persons defined in section 725 of the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 

Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65776 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Individual with a disability means a 

person who has a disability, as that term 

is defined in section 12102 of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (42 

U.S.C. 12101 et seq.). 

Institution of higher education means 

an educational institution as defined in 

sections 101 and 102 of the HEA. 

* * * * * 

Regular secondary school diploma 

means a level attained by individuals 

who meet or exceed the coursework and 

performance standards for high school 

completion established by the 

individual’s State. 

Rigorous secondary school program of 

study means a program of study that 

is— 

(1) Established by a state educational 

agency (SEA) or local educational 

agency (LEA) and recognized as a 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study by the Secretary through the 

process described in 34 CFR 691.16(a) 

through 691.16(c) for the Academic 

Competitiveness Grant (ACG) Program; 

(2) An advanced or honors secondary 

school program established by States 

and in existence for the 2004–2005 

school year or later school years; 

(3) Any secondary school program in 

which a student successfully completes 

at a minimum the following courses: 

(i) Four years of English. 

(ii) Three years of mathematics, 

including algebra I and a 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 

Subpart B 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. Revising paragraph (b). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 643.11 What assurances must an 

applicant submit? 

* * * * * 

(b) The project will collaborate with 

other Federal TRIO projects, GEAR UP 

projects, or programs serving similar 

populations that are serving the same 

target schools or target area in order to 

minimize the duplication of services 

and promote collaborations so that more 

students can be served. 

* * * * * 

■ 42. Section 643.20 is amended by: 

■ A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the 

word ‘‘or’’ after the words ‘‘same 

populations’’ and adding, in its place, 

the word ‘‘and’’; removing the words ‘‘in 

delivering services’’ and adding, in their 

place, the words ‘‘of high quality service 

delivery; and adding the word 

‘‘outcome’’ before the word ‘‘criteria’’. 

■ 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65777 

which the application contains clear 

evidence of the following: 

(1) (4 points) A high number or high 

percentage of the following— 

(i) Low-income families residing in 

the target area; or 

(ii) Students attending the target 

schools who are eligible for free or 

reduced priced lunch as described in 

sections 9(b)(1) and 17(c)(4) of the 

Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act. 

(2) (2 points) Low rates of high school 

persistence among individuals in the 

target schools as evidenced by the 

annual student persistence rates in the 

proposed target schools for the most 

recent year for which data are available. 

(3) (4 points) Low rates of students in 

the target school or schools who 

graduate high school with a regular 

secondary school diploma in the 

standard number of years for the most 

recent year for which data are available. 

(4) (6 points) Low postsecondary 

enrollment and completion rates among 

individuals in the target area and 

schools as evidenced by— 

(i) Low rates of enrollment in 

programs of postsecondary education by 

graduates of the target schools in the 

most recent year for which data are 

available; and 

(ii) A high number or high percentage 

of individuals residing in the target area 

with education completion levels below 

the baccalaureate degree level. 

(5) (2 points) The extent to which the 

target secondary schools do not offer 

their students the courses or academic 

support to complete a rigorous 

secondary school program of study or 

have low participation or low success 

by low-income or first generation 

students in such courses. 

(6) (6 points) Other indicators of need 

for a TS project, including low academic 

achievement and low standardized test 

scores of students enrolled in the target 

schools, a high ratio of students to 

school counselors in the target schools, 

and the presence of unaddressed 

academic or socio-economic problems 

of eligible individuals, including foster 

care youth and homeless children and 

youth in the target schools or the target 

area. 

(b) Objectives (8 points). The 

Secretary evaluates the quality of the 

applicant’s objectives and proposed 

targets (percentages) in the following 

areas on the basis of the extent to which 

they are both ambitious, as related to the 

need data provided under paragraph (a) 

of this section, and attainable, given the 

project’s plan of operation, budget, and 

other resources: 

(1) (2 points) Secondary school 

persistence. 

(2) (2 points) Secondary school 

graduation (regular secondary school 

diploma). 

(3) (1 point) Secondary school 

graduation (rigorous secondary school 

program of study). 

(4) (2 points) Postsecondary education 

enrollment. 

(5) (1 point) Postsecondary degree 

attainment. 

(c) Plan of operation (30 points). The 

Secretary evaluates the quality of the 

applicant’s plan of operation on the 

basis of the following: 

(1) (3 points) The plan to inform the 

residents, schools, and community 

organizations in the target area of the 

purpose, objectives, and services of the 

project and the eligibility requirements 

for participation in the project. 

(2) (3 points) The plan to identify and 

select eligible project participants. 

(3) (10 points) The plan for providing 

the services delineated in § 643.4 as 

appropriate based on the project’s 

assessment of each participant’s need 

for services. 

(4) (6 points) The plan to work in a 

coordinated, collaborative, and costeffective manner as part of an 

overarching college access strategy with 

the target schools or school system and 

other programs for disadvantaged 

students to provide participants with 

access to and assistance in completing 

a rigorous secondary school program of 

study. 

(5) (6 points) The plan, including 

timelines, personnel, and other 

resources, to ensure the proper and 

efficient administration of the project, 

including the project’s organizational 

structure; the time commitment of key 

project staff; and financial, personnel, 

and records management. 

(6) (2 points) The plan to follow 

former participants as they enter, 

continue in, and complete 

postsecondary education. 

(d) * * * 

(2) (8 points) Resources secured 

through written commitments from 

community partners. 

(i) An applicant that is an institution 

of higher education must include in its 

application commitments from the 

target schools and community 

organizations; 

(ii) An applicant that is a secondary 

school must include in its commitments 

from institutions of higher education, 

community organizations, and, as 

appropriate, other secondary schools 

and the school district; and 

(iii) An applicant that is a community 

organization must include in its 

application commitments from the 

target schools and institutions of higher 

education. 

* * * * * 

■ 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) The Secretary does not award any 

PE points for the criterion specified in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section (Number 

of participants) if the applicant did not 

serve at least the approved number of 

participants. 

(d) For purposes of the evaluation of 

grants awarded after January 1, 2009, 

the Secretary evaluates the applicant’s 

PE on the basis of the following 

outcome criteria: 

(1) (3 points) Number of participants. 

Whether the applicant provided services 

to no less than the approved number of 

participants. 

(2) (3 points) Secondary school 

persistence. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its objective regarding the 

continued secondary school enrollment 

of participants. 

(3) (3 points) Secondary school 

graduation (regular secondary school 

diploma). Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its objective regarding the 

graduation of participants served during 

the project year from secondary school 

with a regular secondary school 

diploma in the standard number of 

years. 

(4) (1.5 points) Secondary school 

graduation (rigorous secondary school 

program of study). Whether the 

applicant met or exceeded its objective 

regarding the graduation of participants 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65778 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

served during the project year who 

completed a rigorous secondary school 

program of study. 

(5) (3 points) Postsecondary 

enrollment. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its objective regarding the 

participants expected to graduate from 

high school in the school year who 

enrolled in an institution of higher 

education within the time period 

specified in the approved objective. 

(6) (1.5 points) Postsecondary 

completion. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its objective regarding 

project participants who enrolled in and 

completed a program of postsecondary 

education within the number of years 

specified in the approved objective. The 

applicant may determine success in 

meeting the objective by using a 

randomly selected sample of 

participants in accordance with the 

parameters established by the Secretary 

in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications or other published 

application materials for the 

competition. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1840—NEW7) 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–12) 

§ 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 provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(5) An applicant whose application 

was not funded after the first review as 

described in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section and whose application received 

a score within the funding band as 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section has at least 15 calendar days 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65779 

after receiving notification that its 

application was not funded in which to 

submit a written request for a second 

review in accordance with the 

instructions and due date provided in 

the Secretary’s written notification. 

(6) An applicant’s written request for 

a second review must be received by the 

Department or submitted electronically 

to the designated e-mail or Web address 

by the due date and time established by 

the Secretary. 

(7) If the Secretary determines that the 

Department or the Department’s agent 

made an administrative error that relates 

to the PE points awarded, as described 

in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the 

Secretary adjusts the applicant’s PE 

score to reflect the correct number of PE 

points. If the adjusted score assigned to 

the application would have resulted in 

funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds 

available, the Secretary funds the 

application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer 

review of applications described in 

paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

(8) If the Secretary determines that the 

Department, the Department’s agent or 

the peer reviewer made an 

administrative error that relates to the 

peer reviewers’ score(s), as described in 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the 

Secretary adjusts the applicant’s peer 

reviewers’ score(s) to correct the error. 

If the adjusted score assigned to the 

application would have resulted in 

funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds 

available, the Secretary funds the 

application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer 

review of applications described in 

paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

(9) If the Secretary determines that a 

peer reviewer made a scoring error, as 

described in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section, the Secretary convenes a second 

panel of peer reviewers in accordance 

with the requirements in section 

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

(10) The average of the peer 

reviewers’ scores from the second peer 

review are used in the second ranking 

of applications. The average score 

obtained from the second peer review 

panel is the final peer reviewer score for 

the application and will be used even if 

the second review results in a lower 

score for the application than that 

obtained in the initial review. 

(11) For applications in the funding 

band, the Secretary funds these 

applications in rank order based on 

adjusted scores and the available funds 

that have been set aside for the second 

review of applications. 

(d) Process for establishing a funding 

band. (1) For each competition, the 

Secretary establishes a funding band for 

the second review of applications. 

(2) The Secretary establishes the 

funding band for each competition 

based on the amount of funds the 

Secretary has set aside for the second 

review of applications. 

(3) The funding band is composed of 

those applications— 

(i) With a rank-order score before the 

second review that is below the lowest 

score of applications funded after the 

first review; and 

(ii) That would be funded if the 

Secretary had 150 percent of the funds 

that were set aside for the second review 

of applications for the competition. 

(e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary’s 

determination of whether the applicant 

has met the requirements for a second 

review and the Secretary’s decision on 

re-scoring of an application are final and 

not subject to further appeal or 

challenge. 

(2) An application that scored below 

the established funding band for the 

competition is not eligible for a second 

review. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1840–NEW2) 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11) 

■ 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), 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 (c) introductory 

text. 

■ I. Revising paragraph (f). 

■ J. Adding new paragraphs (g) and (h). 

The revisions 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. 

* * * * * 

(c) Fees required for admission 

applications for postsecondary 

education, college entrance 

examinations, or alternative education 

examinations if— 

* * * * * 

(f) Purchase, lease, or rental of 

computer hardware, software, and other 

equipment, service agreements for such 

equipment, and supplies that support 

the delivery of services to participants, 

including technology used by 

participants in a rigorous secondary 

school program of study. 

(g) Purchase, lease, service agreement, 

or rental of computer equipment and 

software needed for project 

administration and recordkeeping. 

(h) Tuition costs for a course that is 

part of a rigorous secondary school 

program of study if— 

(1) The course or a similar course is 

not offered at the secondary school that 

the participant attends or at another 

school within the school district; 

(2) The grantee demonstrates to the 

Secretary’s satisfaction that using grant 

funds is the most cost-effective way to 

deliver the course or courses necessary 

for the completion of a rigorous 

secondary school program of study for 

program participants; 

(3) The course is taken through an 

accredited institution of higher 

education; 

(4) The course is comparable in 

content and rigor to courses that are part 

of a rigorous secondary school program 

of study as defined in § 643.7(b); 

(5) The secondary school accepts the 

course as meeting one or more of the 

course requirements for obtaining a 

regular secondary school diploma; 

(6) A waiver of the tuition costs is 

unavailable; 

(7) The tuition is paid with Talent 

Search grant funds to an institution of 

higher education on behalf of a 

participant; and 

(8) The Talent Search project pays for 

no more than the equivalent of two 

courses for a participant each school 

year. 

■ 48. Section 643.31 is amended in 

paragraph (a) by removing the phrase 

‘‘Tuition, stipends,’’ and by adding, in its 

place, the word ‘‘Stipends’’. 

■ 49. Section 643.32 is amended by: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65780 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ A. Revising paragraph (b). 

■ B. In paragraph (c) introductory text, 

removing the word ‘‘shall’’ and adding, 

in its place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

■ C. In paragraph (c)(3), removing the 

word ‘‘and’’. 

■ D. In paragraph (c)(4), removing the 

punctuation ‘‘.’’ and adding, in its place, 

the words ‘‘; and’’. 

■ E. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5). 

■ F. Revising paragraph (d). 

■ G. In the OMB control number 

parenthetical following paragraph (d), 

removing the numbers ‘‘1840–0549’’ and 

adding, in their place, the numbers 

‘‘1840–NEW2’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 643.32 What other requirements must a 

grantee meet? 

* * * * * 

(b) Number of Participants. For each 

year of the project period, a grantee 

must serve at least the number of 

participants that the Secretary identifies 

in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for a competition. Through 

this notice, the Secretary also provides 

the minimum and maximum grant 

award amounts for the competition. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) To the extent practicable, any 

services the TS participant receives 

during the project year from another 

Federal TRIO program or another 

federally funded program that serves 

populations similar to those served 

under the TS program. 

(d) Project director. (1) A grantee must 

employ a full-time project director 

unless— 

(i) The director is also administering 

one or two additional programs for 

disadvantaged students operated by the 

sponsoring institution or agency; or 

(ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of 

this requirement. 

(2) The grantee must give the project 

director sufficient authority to 

administer the project effectively. 

(3) The Secretary waives the 

requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section if the applicant demonstrates 

that the project director will be able to 

effectively administer more than three 

programs and that this arrangement 

would promote effective coordination 

between the TS program and other 

Federal TRIO Programs (sections 402B 

through 402F of the HEA) or similar 

programs funded through other sources. 

* * * * * 

PART 644—EDUCATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITY CENTERS 

■ 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 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 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 a 

disability’’. 

■ 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65781 

applied for a grant under this chapter to 

serve; or 

(ii) While sharing some of the same 

needs as another population that the 

eligible entity has applied for a grant to 

serve, has distinct needs for specialized 

services. 

Financial and economic literacy 

means knowledge about personal 

financial decision-making, which may 

include but is not limited to knowledge 

about— 

(i) Personal and family budget 

planning; 

(ii) Understanding credit building 

principles to meet long-term and shortterm goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit 

scoring, negative impacts on credit 

scores); 

(iii) Cost planning for postsecondary 

or postbaccalaureate education (e.g., 

spending, saving, personal budgeting); 

(iv) College cost of attendance (e.g., 

public vs. private, tuition vs. fees, 

personal costs); 

(v) Financial assistance (e.g., searches, 

application processes, and differences 

between private and government loans, 

assistanceships); and 

(vi) Assistance in completing the Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA). 

Foster care youth means youth who 

are in foster care or are aging out of the 

foster care system. 

* * * * * 

Homeless children and youth means 

those persons defined in section 725 of 

the McKinney-Vento Homeless 

Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a). 

Individual with a disability means a 

person who has a disability, as that term 

is defined in section 12102 of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (42 

U.S.C. 12101 et seq.). 

Institution of higher education means 

an educational institution as defined in 

sections 101 and 102 of the HEA. 

* * * * * 

Veteran means a person who— 

(i) Served on active duty as a member 

of the Armed Forces of the United States 

for a period of more than 180 days and 

was discharged or released under 

conditions other than dishonorable; 

(ii) Served on active duty as a member 

of the Armed Forces of the United States 

and was discharged or released because 

of a service connected disability; 

(iii) Was a member of a reserve 

component of the Armed Forces of the 

United States and was called to active 

duty for a period of more than 30 days; 

or 

(iv) Was a member of a reserve 

component of the Armed Forces of the 

United States who served on active duty 

in support of a contingency operation 

(as that term is defined in section 

101(a)(13) of title 10, United States 

Code) on or after September 11, 2001. 

* * * * * 

Subpart B—How Does One Apply for 

an Award? 

■ 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) The project will collaborate with 

other Federal TRIO projects, GEAR UP 

projects, or programs serving similar 

populations that are serving the same 

target schools or target area in order to 

minimize the duplication of services 

and promote collaborations so that more 

students can be served. 

* * * * * 

■ 61. Section 644.20 is amended by: 

■ A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the 

word ‘‘or’’ after the words ‘‘same 

populations’’ and adding, in its place, 

the word ‘‘and’’; removing the words ‘‘in 

delivering services’’ and adding, in their 

place, the words ‘‘of high quality service 

delivery; and adding the word 

‘‘outcome’’ before the word ‘‘criteria’’. 

■ 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 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) Secondary school 

diploma or equivalent. 

(2) (3 points) Postsecondary 

enrollment. 

(3) (1.5 points) Financial aid 

applications. 

(4) (1.5 points) College admission 

applications. 

* * * * * 

■ 63. Section 644.22 is revised to read 

as follows: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65782 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 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) The Secretary does not award PE 

points for the criterion specified in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section (Number 

of participants) if the applicant did not 

serve at least the approved number of 

participants. 

(d) For purposes of the PE evaluation 

of grants awarded after January 1, 2009, 

the Secretary evaluates the applicant’s 

PE on the basis of the following 

outcome criteria: 

(1) (3 points) Number of participants. 

Whether the applicant provided services 

to no less than the approved number of 

participants. 

(2) (3 points) Secondary school 

diploma. Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to participants served during the 

project year who do not have a 

secondary school diploma or its 

equivalent who receive a secondary 

school diploma or its equivalent within 

the time period specified in the 

approved objective. 

(3) (5 points) Postsecondary 

enrollment. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to the secondary school graduates 

served during the project year who 

enroll in programs of postsecondary 

education within the time period 

specified in the approved objective. 

(4) (2 points) Financial aid 

applications. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its objective regarding 

participants applying for financial aid. 

(5) (2 points) College admission 

applications. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its objective regarding 

participants applying for college 

admission. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1840–NEW8) 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–16) 

■ 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65783 

needed to evaluate its response to a 

specific selection criterion in the 

appropriate section of the application as 

stipulated in the Federal Register notice 

inviting applications or the other 

published application materials for the 

competition; or 

(C) Any error by the applicant. 

(c) Procedures for the second review. 

(1) To ensure the timely awarding of 

grants under the competition, the 

Secretary sets aside a percentage of the 

funds allotted for the competition to be 

awarded after the second review is 

completed. 

(2) After the competition, the 

Secretary makes new awards in rank 

order as described in § 644.20 based on 

the available funds for the competition 

minus the funds set aside for the second 

review. 

(3) After the Secretary issues a 

notification of grant award to successful 

applicants, the Secretary notifies each 

unsuccessful applicant in writing as to 

the status of its application and the 

funding band for the second review and 

provides copies of the peer reviewers’ 

evaluations of the applicant’s 

application and the applicant’s PE 

score, if applicable. 

(4) An applicant that was not selected 

for funding following the competition as 

described in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section and whose application received 

a score within the funding band as 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section, may request a second review if 

the applicant demonstrates that the 

Department, the Department’s agent, or 

a peer reviewer made an administrative 

or scoring error as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(5) An applicant whose application 

was not funded after the first review as 

described in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section and whose application received 

a score within the funding band as 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section has at least 15 calendar days 

after receiving notification that its 

application was not funded in which to 

submit a written request for a second 

review in accordance with the 

instructions and due date provided in 

the Secretary’s written notification. 

(6) An applicant’s written request for 

a second review must be received by the 

Department or submitted electronically 

to the designated e-mail or Web address 

by the due date and time established by 

the Secretary. 

(7) If the Secretary determines that the 

Department or the Department’s agent 

made an administrative error that relates 

to the PE points awarded, as described 

in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the 

Secretary adjusts the applicant’s PE 

score to reflect the correct number of PE 

points. If the adjusted score assigned to 

the application would have resulted in 

funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds 

available, the Secretary funds the 

application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer 

review of applications described in 

paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

(8) If the Secretary determines that the 

Department, the Department’s agent or 

the peer reviewer made an 

administrative error that relates to the 

peer reviewers’ score(s), as described in 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the 

Secretary adjusts the applicant’s peer 

reviewers’ score(s) to correct the error. 

If the adjusted score assigned to the 

application would have resulted in 

funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds 

available, the Secretary funds the 

application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer 

review of applications described in 

paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

(9) If the Secretary determines that a 

peer reviewer made a scoring error, as 

described in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section, the Secretary convenes a second 

panel of peer reviewers in accordance 

with the requirements in section 

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

(10) The average of the peer 

reviewers’ scores from the second peer 

review are used in the second ranking 

of applications. The average score 

obtained from the second peer review 

panel is the final peer reviewer score for 

the application and will be used even if 

the second review results in a lower 

score for the application than that 

obtained in the initial review. 

(11) For applications in the funding 

band, the Secretary funds these 

applications in rank order based on 

adjusted scores and the available funds 

that have been set aside for the second 

review of applications. 

(d) Process for establishing a funding 

band. (1) For each competition, the 

Secretary establishes a funding band for 

the second review of applications. 

(2) The Secretary establishes the 

funding band for each competition 

based on the amount of funds the 

Secretary has set aside for the second 

review of applications. 

(3) The funding band is composed of 

those applications— 

(i) With a rank-order score before the 

second review that is below the lowest 

score of applications funded after the 

first review; and 

(ii) That would be funded if the 

Secretary had 150 percent of the funds 

that were set aside for the second review 

of applications for the competition. 

(e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary’s 

determination of whether the applicant 

has met the requirements for a second 

review and the Secretary’s decision on 

re-scoring of an application are final and 

not subject to further appeal or 

challenge. 

(2) An application that scored below 

the established funding band for the 

competition is not eligible for a second 

review. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1840—NEW3) 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11) 

■ 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 (c) introductory 

text. 

■ G. 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. 

* * * * * 

(c) Fees required for admission 

applications for postsecondary 

education, college entrance 

examinations, or alternative education 

examinations if— 

* * * * * 

(f) Purchase, lease, or rental of 

computer hardware, software, and other 

equipment, service agreements for such 

equipment, and supplies for participant 

development, project administration, or 

project recordkeeping. 

* * * * * 

■ 67. Section 644.32 is amended by: 

■ A. Revising paragraph (b). 

■ B. In paragraph (c) introductory text, 

removing the word ‘‘shall’’ and adding, 

in its place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

■ C. In paragraph (c)(2), removing the 

word ‘‘and’’. 

■ D. In paragraph (c)(3), removing the 

punctuation ‘‘.’’ and adding, in its place, 

the words ‘‘; and’’. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65784 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ E. Adding a new paragraph (c)(4). 

■ F. Revising paragraph (d). 

■ G. In the OMB control number 

parenthetical following paragraph (d), 

removing the numbers ‘‘1840–0065’’ and 

adding, in their place, the numbers 

‘‘1840—NEW8’’. 

The revisions and addition reads as 

follows: 

§ 644.32 What other requirements must a 

grantee meet? 

* * * * * 

(b) Number of Participants. For each 

year of the project period, a grantee 

must serve at least the number of 

participants that the Secretary identifies 

in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for a competition. Through 

this notice, the Secretary also provides 

the minimum and maximum grant 

award amounts for the competition. 

(c) * * * 

(4) To the extent practicable, any 

services the participant receives during 

the project year from another Federal 

TRIO program or another federally 

funded program that serves populations 

similar to those served under the EOC 

program. 

(d) Project director. (1) A grantee must 

employ a full-time project director 

unless— 

(i) The director is also administering 

one or two additional programs for 

disadvantaged students operated by the 

sponsoring institution or agency; or 

(ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of 

this requirement. 

(2) The grantee must give the project 

director sufficient authority to 

administer the project effectively. 

(3) The Secretary waives the 

requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section if the applicant demonstrates 

that that the project director will be able 

to effectively administer more than 

three programs and that this 

arrangement would promote effective 

coordination between the program and 

other Federal TRIO programs (sections 

402B through 402F of the HEA) and 

similar programs funded through other 

sources. 

* * * * * 

PART 645—UPWARD BOUND 

PROGRAM 

■ 68. The authority citation for part 645 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a– 

13, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 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: 

§ 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 645.3 is amended by: 

■ A. In paragraph (b)(1), removing the 

word ‘‘or’’ after the punctuation ‘‘;’’; 

■ B. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the 

punctuation ‘‘.’’ and adding, in its place, 

the word ‘‘; or’’; 

■ C. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3). 

■ D. In paragraph (d), removing the 

words ‘‘but has not entered the twelfth 

grade’’. 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 645.3 Who is eligible to participate in an 

Upward Bound project? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) An individual who has a high risk 

for academic failure. 

* * * * * 

■ 71. 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? 

* * * * * 

■ 72. 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 73. 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 a disability’’, ‘‘Regular secondary 

school diploma’’, ‘‘Rigorous secondary 

school program of study’’, and ‘‘Veteran 

who has a high risk for academic 

failure’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 645.6 What definitions apply to the 

Upward Bound Program? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Different population means a group of 

individuals that an eligible entity 

desires to serve through an application 

for a grant under the Upward Bound 

program and that— 

(1) Is separate and distinct from any 

other population that the entity has 

applied for a grant to serve; or 

(2) While sharing some of the same 

needs as another population that the 

eligible entity has applied for a grant to 

serve, has distinct needs for specialized 

services. 

* * * * * 

Financial and economic literacy 

means knowledge about personal 

financial decision-making, which may 

include but is not limited to knowledge 

about— 

(1) Personal and family budget 

planning; 

(2) Understanding credit building 

principles to meet long-term and shortterm goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit 

scoring, negative impacts on credit 

scores); 

(3) Cost planning for postsecondary or 

postbaccalaureate education (e.g., 

spending, saving, personal budgeting); 

(4) College cost of attendance (e.g., 

public vs. private, tuition vs. fees, 

personal costs); 

(5) Financial assistance (e.g., searches, 

application processes, and differences 

between private and government loans, 

assistanceships); and 

(6) Assistance in completing the Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA). 

Foster care youth means youth who 

are in foster care or are aging out of the 

foster care system. 

Homeless children and youth means 

persons defined in section 725 of the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 

Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a). 

* * * * * 

Individual who has a high risk for 

academic failure (regular Upward 

Bound participant) means an individual 

who— 

(1) Has not achieved at the proficient 

level on State assessments in reading or 

language arts; 

(2) Has not achieved at the proficient 

level on State assessments in math; 

(3) Has not successfully completed 

pre-algebra or algebra by the beginning 

of the tenth grade; or 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65785 

(4) Has a grade point average of 2.5 or 

less (on a 4.0 scale) for the most recent 

school year for which grade point 

averages are available. 

Individual with a disability means a 

person who has a disability, as that term 

is defined in section 12102 of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (42 

U.S.C. 12101 et seq.). 

Institution of higher education means 

an educational institution as defined in 

sections 101 and 102 of the HEA. 

* * * * * 

Regular secondary school diploma 

means a diploma attained by 

individuals who meet or exceed the 

coursework and performance standards 

for high school completion established 

by the individual’s State. 

Rigorous secondary school program of 

study means a program of study that 

is— 

(1) Established by a State educational 

agency (SEA) or local educational 

agency (LEA) and recognized as a 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study by the Secretary through the 

process described in 34 CFR 691.16(a) 

through (c) for the Academic 

Competitiveness Grant (ACG) Program; 

(2) An advanced or honors secondary 

school program established by States 

and in existence for the 2004–2005 

school year or later school years; 

(3) Any secondary school program in 

which a student successfully completes 

at a minimum the following courses: 

(i) Four years of English. 

(ii) Three years of mathematics, 

including algebra I and a 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. 

Veteran who has a high risk for 

academic failure means a veteran who— 

(1) Has been out of high school or 

dropped out of a program of 

postsecondary education for five or 

more years; 

(2) Has scored on standardized tests 

below the level that demonstrates a 

likelihood of success in a program of 

postsecondary education; or 

(3) Meets the definition of an 

individual with a disability as defined 

in § 645.6(b). 

* * * * * 

■ 74. 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 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] 

■ 75. 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. 

■ 76. 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; 

(f) Programs and activities as 

described in § 645.11 that are specially 

designed for participants who are 

limited English proficient, participants 

from groups that are traditionally 

underrepresented in postsecondary 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65786 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

education, participants who are 

individuals with disabilities, 

participants who are homeless children 

and youths, participants in or who are 

aging out of foster care, or other 

disconnected participants; and 

(g) Other activities designed to meet 

the purposes of the Upward Bound 

program in § 645.1. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–13) 

■ 77. Newly redesignated § 645.15 is 

amended by— 

■ A. Revising the section heading. 

■ B. 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’’. 

■ C. In paragraph (b), removing the 

word ‘‘and’’. 

■ D. In paragraph (c), removing the 

punctuation ‘‘.’’ and adding, in its place, 

the word ‘‘; and’’. 

■ E. Adding a new paragraph (d). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 645.15 What additional services may 

Veterans Upward Bound projects provide? 

* * * * * 

(d) Provide special services, including 

mathematics and science preparation, to 

enable veterans to make the transition to 

postsecondary education. 

* * * * * 

■ 78. 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) 

■ 79. 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) The project will collaborate with 

other Federal TRIO projects, GEAR UP 

projects, or programs serving similar 

populations that are serving the same 

target schools or target area in order to 

minimize the duplication of services 

and promote collaborations so that more 

students can be served. 

(b) An applicant for an Upward 

Bound Math and Science Centers award 

must assure the Secretary that— 

(1) Not less than two-thirds of the 

project’s participants will be 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; 

(3) No student will be denied 

participation in a project because the 

student would enter the project after the 

9th grade; and 

(4) The project will collaborate with 

other Federal TRIO projects, GEAR UP 

projects, or programs serving similar 

populations that are serving the same 

target schools or target area in order to 

minimize the duplication of services 

and promote collaborations so that more 

students can be served. 

(c) An applicant for a Veterans 

Upward Bound award must assure the 

Secretary that— 

(1) Not less than two-thirds of the 

project’s participants will be 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) The project will collaborate with 

other Federal TRIO projects or programs 

serving similar populations in the target 

area in order to minimize the 

duplication of services and promote 

collaborations so that more students can 

be served. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–13) 

■ 80. Section 645.30 is amended by: 

■ A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the 

word ‘‘or’’ after the words ‘‘same target 

population’’ and adding, in its place, the 

word ‘‘and’’; removing the words ‘‘in 

delivering services’’ and adding, in their 

place, the words ‘‘of high quality service 

delivery’’; and adding the word 

‘‘outcome’’ before the word ‘‘criteria’’. 

■ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 81. Section 645.31 is amended by: 

■ A. Revising paragraph (b). 

■ B. Revising paragraph (d)(2). 

The revisions read 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 

retention and graduation (with regular 

secondary school diploma); 

(iv) (1 point) Completion of rigorous 

secondary school program of study; 

(v) (3 points) Postsecondary 

enrollment; and 

(vi) (1 point) Postsecondary 

completion. 

(2) For Veterans Upward Bound— 

(i) (2 points) Academic performance 

(standardized test scores); 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65787 

(ii) (3 points) Education program 

retention and completion; 

(iii) (3 points) Postsecondary 

enrollment; and 

(iv) (1 point) Postsecondary 

completion. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) Resources secured through written 

commitments from community partners. 

(i) An applicant that is an institution 

of higher education must include in its 

application commitments from the 

target schools and community 

organizations; 

(ii) An applicant that is a secondary 

school must include in its commitments 

from institutions of higher education, 

community organizations, and, as 

appropriate, other secondary schools 

and the school district; 

(iii) An applicant that is a community 

organization must include in its 

application commitments from the 

target schools and institutions of higher 

education. 

* * * * * 

■ 82. 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) The Secretary does not award PE 

points for the criteria specified in 

paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(2)(i) of this 

section (Number of participants) if the 

applicant did not serve at least the 

approved number of participants. 

(d) The Secretary uses the approved 

number of participants, or the actual 

number of participants served in a given 

year if greater than the approved 

number of participants, as the 

denominator for calculating whether the 

applicant has met its approved 

objectives related to the following PE 

criteria: 

(1) Regular Upward Bound and 

Upward Bound Math and Science 

Centers PE criteria in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) 

of this section (Academic performance) 

and paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section 

(Secondary school retention and 

graduation). 

(2) Veterans Upward Bound PE 

criteria in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this 

section (Education program retention 

and completion). 

(e) For purposes of the PE evaluation 

of grants awarded after January 1, 2009, 

the Secretary evaluates the applicant’s 

PE on the basis of the following 

outcome criteria: 

(1) Regular Upward Bound and 

Upward Bound Math and Science 

Centers. 

(i) (3 points) Number of participants. 

Whether the applicant provided services 

to no less than the approved number of 

participants. 

(ii) Academic Performance. (A) (1.5 

points) Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to participants served during the 

project year who had a cumulative GPA 

at the end of the school year that was 

not less than the GPA specified in the 

approved objective. 

(B) (1.5 points) Whether the applicant 

met or exceeded its approved objective 

with regard to participants served 

during the project period who met the 

academic performance levels on 

standardized tests as specified in the 

approved objectives. 

(iii) (3 points) Secondary school 

retention and graduation. Whether the 

applicant met or exceeded its approved 

objective with regard to participants 

served during the project year who 

returned the next school year or 

graduated from secondary school with a 

regular secondary school diploma. 

(iv) (1.5 points) Rigorous secondary 

school program of study. Whether the 

applicant met or exceeded its approved 

objective with regard to current and 

prior participants with an expected high 

school graduation date in the school 

year who completed a rigorous 

secondary school program of study. 

(v) (3 points) Postsecondary 

enrollment. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its approved objective with 

regard current and prior participants 

with an expected high school 

graduation date in the school year who 

enrolled in a program of postsecondary 

education within the time period 

specified in the approved objective. 

(vi) (1.5 points) Postsecondary 

completion. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to participants who enrolled in a 

program of postsecondary education 

and attained a postsecondary degree 

within the number of years specified in 

the approved objective. 

(2) Veterans Upward Bound. 

(i) (3 points) Number of participants. 

Whether the applicant provided services 

to no less than the approved number of 

participants. 

(ii) (3 points) Academic improvement 

on standardized test. Whether the 

applicant met or exceeded its approved 

objective with regard to participants 

who completed their Veterans Upward 

Bound educational program during the 

project year and who improved their 

academic performance as measured by a 

standardized test taken by participants 

before and after receiving services from 

the project. 

(iii) (3 points) Education program 

retention and completion. Whether the 

applicant met or exceeded its approved 

objective with regard to participants 

served during the project year who 

remained in or completed their Veterans 

Upward Bound educational program. 

(iv) (3 points) Postsecondary 

enrollment. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to participants who completed 

their Veterans Upward Bound 

educational program and enrolled in an 

institution of higher education within 

the time period specified in the 

approved objective. 

(v) (3 points) Postsecondary 

completion. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its approved objective with 

regard to participants who enrolled in 

and completed a program of 

postsecondary education within the 

number of years specified in the 

approved objective. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1840–NEW9) 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a– 

13) 

§ 645.33 [Amended] 

■ 83. Section 645.33 is amended by, in 

paragraph (b)(1), removing the amount 

‘‘$190,000’’ and adding, in its place, the 

amount ‘‘$200,000’’. 

■ 84. 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) 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65788 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 85. 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— 

(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 provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(5) An applicant whose application 

was not funded after the first review as 

described in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section and whose application received 

a score within the funding band as 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section has at least 15 calendar days 

after receiving notification that its 

application was not funded in which to 

submit a written request for a second 

review in accordance with the 

instructions and due date provided in 

the Secretary’s written notification. 

(6) An applicant’s written request for 

a second review must be received by the 

Department or submitted electronically 

to the designated e-mail or Web address 

by the due date and time established by 

the Secretary. 

(7) If the Secretary determines that the 

Department or the Department’s agent 

made an administrative error that relates 

to the PE points awarded, as described 

in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the 

Secretary adjusts the applicant’s PE 

score to reflect the correct number of PE 

points. If the adjusted score assigned to 

the application would have resulted in 

funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds 

available, the Secretary funds the 

application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer 

review of applications described in 

paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

(8) If the Secretary determines that the 

Department, the Department’s agent or 

the peer reviewer made an 

administrative error that relates to the 

peer reviewers’ score(s), as described in 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the 

Secretary adjusts the applicant’s peer 

reviewers’ score(s) to correct the error. 

If the adjusted score assigned to the 

application would have resulted in 

funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65789 

available, the Secretary funds the 

application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer 

review of applications described in 

paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

(9) If the Secretary determines that a 

peer reviewer made a scoring error, as 

described in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section, the Secretary convenes a second 

panel of peer reviewers in accordance 

with the requirements in section 

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

(10) The average of the peer 

reviewers’ scores from the second peer 

review are used in the second ranking 

of applications. The average score 

obtained from the second peer review 

panel is the final peer reviewer score for 

the application and will be used even if 

the second review results in a lower 

score for the application than that 

obtained in the initial review. 

(11) For applications in the funding 

band, the Secretary funds these 

applications in rank order based on 

adjusted scores and the available funds 

that have been set aside for the second 

review of applications. 

(d) Process for establishing a funding 

band. (1) For each competition, the 

Secretary establishes a funding band for 

the second review of applications. 

(2) The Secretary establishes the 

funding band for each competition 

based on the amount of funds the 

Secretary has set aside for the second 

review of applications. 

(3) The funding band is composed of 

those applications— 

(i) With a rank-order score before the 

second review that is below the lowest 

score of applications funded after the 

first review; and 

(ii) That would be funded if the 

Secretary had 150 percent of the funds 

that were set aside for the second review 

of applications for the competition. 

(e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary’s 

determination of whether the applicant 

has met the requirements for a second 

review and the Secretary’s decision on 

re-scoring of an application are final and 

not subject to further appeal or 

challenge. 

(2) An application that scored below 

the established funding band for the 

competition is not eligible for a second 

review. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1840–NEW4) 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11) 

■ 86. 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). 

■ E. Adding new paragraph (q). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 645.40 What are allowable costs? 

* * * * * 

(n) Purchase, lease, or rental of 

computer hardware, software, and other 

equipment, service agreements for such 

equipment, and supplies that support 

the delivery of services to participants, 

including technology used by 

participants in a rigorous secondary 

school program of study. 

(o) Purchase, lease, or rental of 

computer equipment and software, 

service agreements for such equipment, 

and supplies needed for project 

administration and recordkeeping. 

* * * * * 

(q) Tuition costs for a course that is 

part of a rigorous secondary school 

program of study if— 

(1) The course or a similar course is 

not offered at the secondary school that 

the participant attends or at another 

school within the school district; 

(2) The grantee demonstrates to the 

Secretary’s satisfaction that using grant 

funds is the most cost-effective way to 

deliver the course or courses necessary 

for the completion of a rigorous 

secondary school program of study for 

program participants; 

(3) The course is taken through an 

accredited institution of higher 

education; 

(4) The course is comparable in 

content and rigor to courses that are part 

of a rigorous secondary school program 

of study as defined in § 645.6(b); 

(5) The secondary school accepts the 

course as meeting one or more of the 

course requirements for obtaining a 

regular secondary school diploma; 

(6) A waiver of the tuition costs is 

unavailable; 

(7) The tuition is paid with Upward 

Bound grant funds to an institution of 

higher education on behalf of a 

participant; and 

(8) The Upward Bound project pays 

for no more than the equivalent of two 

courses for a participant each school 

year. 

* * * * * 

■ 87. 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 88. Section 645.43 is amended by: 

■ A. Revising paragraph (a). 

■ B. Revising paragraph (b). 

■ C. In paragraph (c) introductory text, 

removing the word ‘‘shall’’ and adding, 

in its place, the word ‘‘must’’. 

■ D. In paragraph (c)(4), removing the 

punctuation ‘‘.’’ and adding, in its place, 

the words ‘‘; and’’. 

■ E. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5). 

■ F. Adding an OMB control number 

parenthetical following paragraph (c). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 645.43 What other requirements must a 

grantee meet? 

(a) Number of Participants. For each 

year of the project period, a grantee 

must serve at least the number of 

participants that the Secretary identifies 

in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for a competition. Through 

this notice, the Secretary also provides 

the minimum and maximum grant 

award amounts for the competition. 

(b) Project director. (1) A grantee must 

employ a full-time project director 

unless— 

(i) The director is also administering 

one or two additional programs for 

disadvantaged students operated by the 

sponsoring institution or agency; or 

(ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of 

this requirement. 

(2) The grantee must give the project 

director sufficient authority to 

administer the project effectively. 

(3) The Secretary waives the 

requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section if the applicant demonstrates 

that the project director will be able to 

effectively administer more than three 

programs and that this arrangement 

would promote effective coordination 

between the program and other Federal 

TRIO programs (sections 402B through 

402F of the HEA) and similar programs 

funded through other sources. 

(c) * * * 

(5) To the extent practicable, any 

services the participant receives during 

the project year from another Federal 

TRIO program or another federally 

funded program that serves populations 

similar to those served under the UB 

program. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1840–NEW9) 

* * * * * 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65790 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 646—STUDENT SUPPORT 

SERVICES 

■ 89. The authority citation for part 646 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a– 

14, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 90. 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 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 91. 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 and 

economic literacy of students, including 

financial planning for postsecondary 

education. 

(5) Activities designed to assist 

participants enrolled in four-year 

institutions of higher education in 

applying for admission to, and obtaining 

financial assistance for enrollment in, 

graduate and professional programs. 

(6) Activities designed to assist 

students enrolled in two-year 

institutions of higher education in 

applying for admission to, and obtaining 

financial assistance for enrollment in, a 

four-year program of postsecondary 

education. 

(b) A Student Support Services 

project may provide the following 

services: 

(1) Individualized counseling for 

personal, career, and academic matters 

provided by assigned counselors. 

(2) Information, activities, and 

instruction designed to acquaint 

students participating in the project 

with the range of career options 

available to the students. 

(3) Exposure to cultural events and 

academic programs not usually 

available to disadvantaged students. 

(4) Mentoring programs involving 

faculty or upper class students, or a 

combination thereof. 

(5) Securing temporary housing 

during breaks in the academic year for— 

(i) Students who are homeless 

children and youths or were formerly 

homeless children and youths; and 

(ii) Foster care youths. 

(6) Programs and activities as 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section or paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(4) of this section that are specially 

designed for students who are limited 

English proficient, students from groups 

that are traditionally underrepresented 

in postsecondary education, students 

who are individuals with disabilities, 

students who are homeless children and 

youths, students who are foster care 

youth, or other disconnected students. 

(7) Other activities designed to meet 

the purposes of the Student Support 

Services Program in § 646.1. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–14) 

■ 92. 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) 

■ 93. 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 through 75.221), 77, 79, 80, 

82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. 

* * * * * 

■ 94. 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 a disability’’; and adding, in 

alphabetical order, new definitions for 

‘‘Different population’’, ‘‘Financial and 

economic literacy’’, ‘‘First generation 

college student’’, ‘‘Foster care youth’’, 

‘‘Homeless children and youth’’, 

‘‘Institution of higher education’’, and 

‘‘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— 

(1) Is separate and distinct from any 

other population that the entity has 

applied for a grant to serve; or 

(2) While sharing some of the same 

needs as another population that the 

eligible entity has applied for a grant to 

serve, has distinct needs for specialized 

services. 

Financial and economic literacy 

means knowledge about personal 

financial decision-making, which may 

include but is not limited to knowledge 

about— 

(1) Personal and family budget 

planning; 

(2) Understanding credit building 

principles to meet long-term and shortterm goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit 

scoring, negative impacts on credit 

scores); 

(3) Cost planning for postsecondary or 

postbaccalaureate education (e.g., 

spending, saving, personal budgeting); 

(4) College cost of attendance (e.g., 

public vs. private, tuition vs. fees, 

personal costs); 

(5) Financial assistance (e.g., searches, 

application processes, differences 

between private and government loans, 

assistanceships); and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65791 

(6) Assistance in completing the Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA). 

First generation college student 

means— 

(1) A student neither of whose natural 

or adoptive parents received a 

baccalaureate degree; 

(2) A student who, prior to the age of 

18, regularly resided with and received 

support from only one parent and 

whose supporting parent did not receive 

a baccalaureate degree; or 

(3) An individual who, prior to the 

age of 18, did not regularly reside with 

or receive support from a natural or an 

adoptive parent. 

Foster care youth means youth who 

are in foster care or are aging out of the 

foster care system. 

Homeless children and youth means 

persons defined in section 725 of the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 

Act (42 U.S.C. 1143a). 

Individual with a disability means a 

person who has a disability, as that term 

is defined in section 12102 of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (42 

U.S.C. 12101 et seq.). 

Institution of higher education means 

an educational institution as defined in 

sections 101 and 102 of the Act. 

* * * * * 

Low-income individual means an 

individual whose family’s taxable 

income did not exceed 150 percent of 

the poverty level amount in the calendar 

year preceding the year in which the 

individual initially participated in the 

project. The poverty level amount is 

determined by using criteria of poverty 

established by the Bureau of the Census 

of the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

* * * * * 

■ 95. Subpart B of part 646 is revised to 

read as follows: 

Subpart B—How Does One Apply for an 

Award? 

Sec. 

646.10 How many applications may an 

eligible applicant submit and for what 

different populations may an eligible 

application be submitted? 

646.11 What assurances and other 

information must an applicant include in 

an application? 

Subpart B—How Does One Apply for 

an Award? 

§ 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. 

(c) The applicant must assure the 

Secretary in the application that a 

student will not be served by more than 

one SSS project at any one time and that 

the SSS project will collaborate with 

other SSS and McNair projects and 

other State and institutional programs at 

the grantee-institution so that more 

students can be served. 

(d) The applicant must assure the 

Secretary in the application that the 

institution’s financial aid office will 

consult with the SSS project with 

respect to which SSS participants 

should receive grant aid and the amount 

of the grant aid awards. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1840–NEW5) 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–14) 

■ 96. Section 646.20 is amended by: 

■ A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), removing the 

word ‘‘or’’ after the words ‘‘same 

population’’ and adding, in its place, the 

word ‘‘and’’; removing the words ‘‘in 

delivering services’’ and adding, in their 

place, the words ‘‘of high quality service 

delivery; and adding the word 

‘‘outcome’’ before the word ‘‘criteria’’. 

■ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 97. Section 646.21 is amended by: 

■ A. Revising paragraph (b). 

■ B. Revising the OMB control number 

at the end of the section. 

The revisions read 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) 

* * * * * 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65792 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 98. 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) The Secretary does not award PE 

points for the criterion specified in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section (Number 

of participants) if the applicant did not 

serve at least the approved number of 

participants. 

(d) The Secretary uses the approved 

number of participants, or the actual 

number of participants served in a given 

year if greater than the approved 

number of participants, as the 

denominator for calculating whether the 

applicant has met its approved 

objectives related to paragraph (e)(2) of 

this section (Postsecondary retention) 

and paragraph (e)(3) of this section 

(Good academic standing). 

(e) For purposes of the PE evaluation 

of grants awarded after January 1, 2009, 

the Secretary evaluates the applicant’s 

PE on the basis of the following 

outcome criteria: 

(1) (3 points) Number of participants. 

Whether the applicant provided services 

to no less than the approved number of 

participants. 

(2) (4 points) Postsecondary retention. 

Whether the applicant met or exceeded 

its objective regarding the participants 

served during the project year who 

continue to be enrolled in a program of 

postsecondary education from one 

academic year to the beginning of the 

next academic year or who complete a 

program of postsecondary education at 

the grantee institution during the 

academic year or transfer from a twoyear institution to a four-year institution 

during the academic year. 

(3) (4 points) Good academic 

standing. Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its objective regarding the 

participants served during the project 

year who are in good academic standing 

at the grantee institution. 

(4) (4 points) Degree completion (for 

an applicant institution of higher 

education offering primarily a 

baccalaureate or higher degree). 

Whether the applicant met or exceeded 

its objective regarding the current and 

prior participants receiving a 

baccalaureate degree at the grantee 

institution within the specified number 

of years. 

(5) Degree completion and transfer 

(for an applicant institution of higher 

education offering primarily an 

associate degree). Whether the applicant 

met or exceeded its objectives regarding 

the current and prior participants at the 

grantee institution who— 

(i) (2 points) Complete a degree or 

certificate within the number of years 

specified in the approved objective; and 

(ii) (2 points) Transfer within the 

number of years specified in the 

approved objective to institutions of 

higher education that offer 

baccalaureate degrees. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1840–NEW10) 

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

§ 646.23 [Amended] 

■ 99. Section 646.23(b)(1) is amended 

by removing the amount ‘‘$170,000’’ and 

adding, in its place, the amount 

‘‘$200,000’’. 

■ 100. 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65793 

wrong peer reviewer scores to an 

application. 

(3)(i) A scoring error relates only to 

the peer review process and includes 

errors caused by a reviewer who, in 

assigning points— 

(A) Uses criteria not required by the 

applicable law or program regulations, 

the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications, the other published 

application materials for the 

competition, or guidance provided to 

the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or 

(B) Does not consider relevant 

information included in the appropriate 

section of the application. 

(ii) The term ‘‘scoring error’’ does not 

include— 

(A) A peer reviewer’s appropriate use 

of his or her professional judgment in 

evaluating and scoring an application; 

(B) Any situation in which the 

applicant did not include information 

needed to evaluate its response to a 

specific selection criterion in the 

appropriate section of the application as 

stipulated in the Federal Register notice 

inviting applications or the other 

published application materials for the 

competition; or 

(C) Any error by the applicant. 

(c) Procedures for the second review. 

(1) To ensure the timely awarding of 

grants under the competition, the 

Secretary sets aside a percentage of the 

funds allotted for the competition to be 

awarded after the second review is 

completed. 

(2) After the competition, the 

Secretary makes new awards in rank 

order as described in § 646.20 based on 

the available funds for the competition 

minus the funds set aside for the second 

review. 

(3) After the Secretary issues a 

notification of grant award to successful 

applicants, the Secretary notifies each 

unsuccessful applicant in writing as to 

the status of its application and the 

funding band for the second review and 

provides copies of the peer reviewers’ 

evaluations of the applicant’s 

application and the applicant’s PE 

score, if applicable. 

(4) An applicant that was not selected 

for funding following the competition as 

described in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section and whose application received 

a score within the funding band as 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section, may request a second review if 

the applicant demonstrates that the 

Department, the Department’s agent, or 

a peer reviewer made an administrative 

or scoring error as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(5) An applicant whose application 

was not funded after the first review as 

described in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section and whose application received 

a score within the funding band as 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section has at least 15 calendar days 

after receiving notification that its 

application was not funded in which to 

submit a written request for a second 

review in accordance with the 

instructions and due date provided in 

the Secretary’s written notification. 

(6) An applicant’s written request for 

a second review must be received by the 

Department or submitted electronically 

to the designated e-mail or Web address 

by the due date and time established by 

the Secretary. 

(7) If the Secretary determines that the 

Department or the Department’s agent 

made an administrative error that relates 

to the PE points awarded, as described 

in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the 

Secretary adjusts the applicant’s PE 

score to reflect the correct number of PE 

points. If the adjusted score assigned to 

the application would have resulted in 

funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds 

available, the Secretary funds the 

application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer 

review of applications described in 

paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

(8) If the Secretary determines that the 

Department, the Department’s agent or 

the peer reviewer made an 

administrative error that relates to the 

peer reviewers’ score(s), as described in 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the 

Secretary adjusts the applicant’s peer 

reviewers’ score(s) to correct the error. 

If the adjusted score assigned to the 

application would have resulted in 

funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds 

available, the Secretary funds the 

application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer 

review of applications described in 

paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

(9) If the Secretary determines that a 

peer reviewer made a scoring error, as 

described in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section, the Secretary convenes a second 

panel of peer reviewers in accordance 

with the requirements in section 

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

(10) The average of the peer 

reviewers’ scores from the second peer 

review are used in the second ranking 

of applications. The average score 

obtained from the second peer review 

panel is the final peer reviewer score for 

the application and will be used even if 

the second review results in a lower 

score for the application than that 

obtained in the initial review. 

(11) For applications in the funding 

band, the Secretary funds these 

applications in rank order based on 

adjusted scores and the available funds 

that have been set aside for the second 

review of applications. 

(d) Process for establishing a funding 

band. (1) For each competition, the 

Secretary establishes a funding band for 

the second review of applications. 

(2) The Secretary establishes the 

funding band for each competition 

based on the amount of funds the 

Secretary has set aside for the second 

review of applications. 

(3) The funding band is composed of 

those applications— 

(i) With a rank-order score before the 

second review that is below the lowest 

score of applications funded after the 

first review; and 

(ii) That would be funded if the 

Secretary had 150 percent of the funds 

that were set aside for the second review 

of applications for the competition. 

(e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary’s 

determination of whether the applicant 

has met the requirements for a second 

review and the Secretary’s decision on 

re-scoring of an application are final and 

not subject to further appeal or 

challenge. 

(2) An application that scored below 

the established funding band for the 

competition is not eligible for a second 

review. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1840–NEW5) 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11) 

■ 101. 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 (e) 

■ C. Revising paragraph (f). 

■ D. Adding new paragraphs (i) and (j). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 646.30 What are allowable costs? 

* * * * * 

(e) Transportation and, with the prior 

approval of the Secretary, meals and 

lodging for participants and staff during 

approved educational and cultural 

activities sponsored by the project. 

(f) Purchase, lease, or rental of 

computer hardware, software, and other 

equipment, service agreements for such 

equipment, and supplies for participant 

development, project administration, or 

project recordkeeping. 

* * * * * 

(i) Grant aid to eligible students 

who— 

(1) Are in their first two years of 

postsecondary education and who are 

receiving Federal Pell Grants under 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65794 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Act; 

or 

(2) Have completed their first two 

years of postsecondary education and 

who are receiving Federal Pell Grants 

under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of 

the Act if the institution demonstrates to 

the satisfaction of the Secretary that— 

(i) These students are at high risk of 

dropping out; and 

(ii) It will first meet the needs of all 

its eligible first- and second-year 

students for services under this 

paragraph. 

(j) Temporary housing during breaks 

in the academic year for— 

(1) Students who are homeless 

children and youths or were formerly 

homeless children and youths; and 

(2) Students who are foster care 

youth. 

* * * * * 

§ 646.31 [Amended] 

■ 102. 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] 

■ 103. Section 646.32 is amended by: 

■ A. Redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), 

(c), and (d) as paragraphs (b), (c), and 

(d), and (e) respectively. 

■ B. Adding a new paragraph (a). 

■ C. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(b)(2), removing the words ‘‘Higher 

Education’’. 

■ D. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(b), removing paragraph (b)(3). 

■ E. In newly redesignated paragraph (c) 

introductory text, removing the word 

‘‘shall’’ and adding, in its place, the 

word ‘‘must’’. 

■ F. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(c)(3), removing the word ‘‘and’’. 

■ G. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(c)(4), removing the punctuation ‘‘.’’ and 

adding, in its place, the words ‘‘; and’’. 

■ H. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5). 

■ I. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (d). 

■ J. In the OMB control number 

parenthetical following paragraph (e), 

removing the numbers ‘‘1840–0017’’ and 

adding, in their place, the numbers 

‘‘1840–NEW5’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 646.32 What other requirements must a 

grantee meet? 

(a) Number of Participants. For each 

year of the project period, a grantee 

must serve at least the number of 

participants that the Secretary identifies 

in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for a competition. Through 

this notice, the Secretary also provides 

the minimum and maximum grant 

award amounts for the competition. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) To the extent practicable, any 

services the participant receives during 

the project year from another Federal 

TRIO program or another federally 

funded program that serves populations 

similar to those served under the SSS 

program. 

(d) Project director. (1) A grantee must 

employ a full-time project director 

unless— 

(i) The director is also administering 

one or two additional programs for 

disadvantaged students operated by the 

sponsoring institution or agency; or 

(ii) The Secretary grants a waiver of 

this requirement. 

(2) The grantee must give the project 

director sufficient authority to 

administer the project effectively. 

(3) The Secretary waives the 

requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section if the applicant demonstrates 

that the project director will be able to 

effectively administer more than three 

programs and that this arrangement 

would promote effective coordination 

between the program and other Federal 

TRIO programs (sections 402B through 

402F of the HEA) or similar programs 

funded through other sources. 

* * * * * 

■ 104. 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 

■ 105. The authority citation for part 

647 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a– 

15, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 106. 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 and 

economic literacy of students, including 

financial planning for postsecondary 

education. 

(2) Mentoring programs involving 

faculty members at institutions of higher 

education, students, or a combination of 

faculty members and students. 

(3) Exposure to cultural events and 

academic programs not usually 

available to disadvantaged students. 

(4) Other activities designed to meet 

the purpose of the McNair Program in 

§ 647.1. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–15) 

■ 107. 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) 

■ 108. 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 through 75.221), 77, 79, 80, 

82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. 

* * * * * 

■ 109. Section 647.7(b) is amended by: 

■ A. Removing the definition of 

‘‘Summer internship’’. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65795 

■ 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, which may 

include but is not limited to knowledge 

about— 

(1) Personal and family budget 

planning; 

(2) Understanding credit-building 

principles to meet long-term and shortterm goals (e.g., loan to debt ratio, credit 

scoring, negative impacts on credit 

scores); 

(3) Cost planning for postsecondary or 

postbaccalaureate education (e.g., 

spending, saving, personal budgeting); 

(4) College cost of attendance (e.g., 

public vs. private, tuition vs. fees, 

personal costs); 

(5) Financial assistance (e.g., searches, 

application processes, and differences 

between private and government loans, 

assistanceships); and 

(6) Assistance in completing the Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA). 

* * * * * 

Graduate center means an institution 

of higher education as defined in 

sections 101 and 102 of the HEA; and 

that— 

* * * * * 

Groups underrepresented in graduate 

education. The following ethnic and 

racial groups are considered 

underrepresented in graduate education: 

Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, 

American Indian, Alaskan Native (as 

defined in section 7306 of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)), 

Native Hawaiians (as defined in section 

7207 of the ESEA), and Native American 

Pacific Islanders (as defined in section 

320 of the HEA). 

Institution of higher education means 

an educational institution as defined in 

sections 101 and 102 of the HEA. 

* * * * * 

Research or scholarly activity means 

an educational activity that is more 

rigorous than is typically available to 

undergraduates in a classroom setting, 

that is definitive in its start and end 

dates, contains appropriate benchmarks 

for completion of various components, 

and is conducted under the guidance of 

an appropriate faculty member with 

experience in the relevant discipline. 

* * * * * 

Subpart B—How Does One Apply for 

an Award? 

■ 110. Subpart B of part 647 is amended 

by revising the subpart heading to read 

as set forth above. 

§ 647.10 [Redesignated as § 647.11] 

■ 110a. Redesignate § 647.10 as 

§ 647.11. 

■ 111. 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)) 

■ 112. Newly redesignated § 647.11 is 

amended by adding paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 647.11 What assurances must an 

applicant submit? 

* * * * * 

(d) A student will not be served by 

more than one McNair project at any 

one time and that the McNair project 

will collaborate with other McNair and 

SSS projects and other State and 

institutional programs at the granteeinstitution, including those supporting 

undergraduate research, so that more 

students can be served. 

* * * * * 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–15; 20 U.S.C. 

1221e–3)) 

■ 113. Section 647.20 is amended by: 

■ A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), adding the 

words ‘‘of high quality service delivery’’ 

after the words ‘‘prior experience’’ and 

adding the word ‘‘outcome’’ before the 

word ‘‘criteria’’. 

■ 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 additions 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 114. 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? 

* * * * * 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65796 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) Objectives (9 points). The 

Secretary evaluates the quality of the 

applicant’s objectives and proposed 

targets (percentages) in the following 

areas on the basis of the extent to which 

they are both ambitious, as related to the 

need data provided under paragraph (a) 

of this section, and attainable, given the 

project’s plan of operation, budget, and 

other resources: 

(1) (2 points) Research or scholarly 

activity. 

(2) (3 points) Enrollment in a graduate 

program. 

(3) (2 points) Continued enrollment in 

graduate study. 

(4) (2 points) Doctoral degree 

attainment. 

* * * * * 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1840–NEW6) 

* * * * * 

■ 115. 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) The Secretary does not award any 

PE points for the criteria specified in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section (Number 

of participants) if the applicant did not 

serve at least the approved number of 

participants. 

(d) The Secretary uses the approved 

number of participants, or the actual 

number of participants served in a given 

year if greater than the approved 

number of participants, as the 

denominator for calculating whether the 

applicant has met its approved objective 

related to paragraph (e)(2) of this section 

(Research and scholarly activities). 

(e) For purposes of the PE evaluation 

of grants awarded after January 1, 2009, 

the Secretary evaluates the applicant’s 

PE on the basis of the following 

outcome criteria: 

(1) (3 points) Number of participants. 

Whether the applicant provided services 

to no less than the approved number of 

participants. 

(2) (3 points) Research or scholarly 

activities. Whether the applicant met or 

exceeded its objective for providing 

participants served during the project 

year with appropriate research and 

scholarly activities each academic year. 

(3) (3 points) Graduate school 

enrollment. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its objective with regard to 

the acceptance and enrollment in 

graduate programs of participants 

served during the project year who 

complete the baccalaureate program 

during the academic year. 

(4) (4 points) Continued enrollment in 

graduate school. Whether the applicant 

met or exceeded its objective with 

regard to the continued enrollment in 

graduate school of prior participants. 

(5) (2 points) Doctoral degree 

attainment. Whether the applicant met 

or exceeded its objective with regard to 

the attainment of doctoral level degrees 

of prior participants in the specified 

number of years. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1840–NEW11) 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11 and 1070a– 

15) 

§ 647.23 [Amended] 

■ 116. 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’’. 

■ 117. 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65797 

agent in the calculation of the PE points 

or a failure to correctly add the earned 

PE points to the peer reviewer score. 

(ii) For the peer review score, an 

administrative error is applying the 

wrong peer reviewer scores to an 

application. 

(3)(i) A scoring error relates only to 

the peer review process and includes 

errors caused by a reviewer who, in 

assigning points— 

(A) Uses criteria not required by the 

applicable law or program regulations, 

the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications, the other published 

application materials for the 

competition, or guidance provided to 

the peer reviewers by the Secretary; or 

(B) Does not consider relevant 

information included in the appropriate 

section of the application. 

(ii) The term ‘‘scoring error’’ does not 

include— 

(A) A peer reviewer’s appropriate use 

of his or her professional judgment in 

evaluating and scoring an application; 

(B) Any situation in which the 

applicant did not include information 

needed to evaluate its response to a 

specific selection criterion in the 

appropriate section of the application as 

stipulated in the Federal Register notice 

inviting applications or the other 

published application materials for the 

competition; or 

(C) Any error by the applicant. 

(c) Procedures for the second review. 

(1) To ensure the timely awarding of 

grants under the competition, the 

Secretary sets aside a percentage of the 

funds allotted for the competition to be 

awarded after the second review is 

completed. 

(2) After the competition, the 

Secretary makes new awards in rank 

order as described in § 647.20 based on 

the available funds for the competition 

minus the funds set aside for the second 

review. 

(3) After the Secretary issues a 

notification of grant award to successful 

applicants, the Secretary notifies each 

unsuccessful applicant in writing as to 

the status of its application and the 

funding band for the second review and 

provides copies of the peer reviewers’ 

evaluations of the applicant’s 

application and the applicant’s PE 

score, if applicable. 

(4) An applicant that was not selected 

for funding following the competition as 

described in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section and whose application received 

a score within the funding band as 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section, may request a second review if 

the applicant demonstrates that the 

Department, the Department’s agent, or 

a peer reviewer made an administrative 

or scoring error as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(5) An applicant whose application 

was not funded after the first review as 

described in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section and whose application received 

a score within the funding band as 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section has at least 15 calendar days 

after receiving notification that its 

application was not funded in which to 

submit a written request for a second 

review in accordance with the 

instructions and due date provided in 

the Secretary’s written notification. 

(6) An applicant’s written request for 

a second review must be received by the 

Department or submitted electronically 

to a designated e-mail or Web address 

by the due date and time established by 

the Secretary. 

(7) If the Secretary determines that the 

Department or the Department’s agent 

made an administrative error that relates 

to the PE points awarded, as described 

in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the 

Secretary adjusts the applicant’s PE 

score to reflect the correct number of PE 

points. If the adjusted score assigned to 

the application would have resulted in 

funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds 

available, the Secretary funds the 

application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer 

review of applications described in 

paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

(8) If the Secretary determines that the 

Department, the Department’s agent or 

the peer reviewer made an 

administrative error that relates to the 

peer reviewers’ score(s), as described in 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the 

Secretary adjusts the applicant’s peer 

reviewers’ score(s) to correct the error. 

If the adjusted score assigned to the 

application would have resulted in 

funding of the application during the 

competition and the program has funds 

available, the Secretary funds the 

application prior to the re-ranking of 

applications based on the second peer 

review of applications described in 

paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

(9) If the Secretary determines that a 

peer reviewer made a scoring error, as 

described in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section, the Secretary convenes a second 

panel of peer reviewers in accordance 

with the requirements in section 

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

(10) The average of the peer 

reviewers’ scores from the second peer 

review are used in the second ranking 

of applications. The average score 

obtained from the second peer review 

panel is the final peer reviewer score for 

the application and will be used even if 

the second review results in a lower 

score for the application than that 

obtained in the initial review. 

(11) For applications in the funding 

band, the Secretary funds these 

applications in rank order based on 

adjusted scores and the available funds 

that have been set aside for the second 

review of applications. 

(d) Process for establishing a funding 

band. (1) For each competition, the 

Secretary establishes a funding band for 

the second review of applications. 

(2) The Secretary establishes the 

funding band for each competition 

based on the amount of funds the 

Secretary has set aside for the second 

review of applications. 

(3) The funding band is composed of 

those applications— 

(i) With a rank-order score before the 

second review that is below the lowest 

score of applications funded after the 

first review; and 

(ii) That would be funded if the 

Secretary had 150 percent of the funds 

that were set aside for the second review 

of applications for the competition. 

(e) Final decision. (1) The Secretary’s 

determination of whether the applicant 

has met the requirements for a second 

review and the Secretary’s decision on 

re-scoring of an application are final and 

not subject to further appeal or 

challenge. 

(2) An application that scored below 

the established funding band for the 

competition is not eligible for a second 

review. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1840–NEW6) 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–11) 

■ 118. 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, software, and other 

equipment, service agreements for such 

equipment, and supplies for participant 

development, project administration, or 

project recordkeeping. 

■ 119. Section 647.32 is amended by: 

■ A. Redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), 

(c), and (d) as (b), (c), (d), and (e), 

respectively. 

■ B. Adding a new paragraph (a). 

■ C. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(c), adding a new paragraph (c)(5). 

■ D. Adding an OMB control number 

parenthetical following newlyredesignated paragraph (e). 

The addition and revisions read as 

follows: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65798 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 647.32 What other requirements must a 

grantee meet? 

(a) Number of Participants. For each 

year of the project period, a grantee 

must serve at least the number of 

participants that the Secretary identifies 

in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for a competition. Through 

this notice, the Secretary also provides 

the minimum and maximum grant 

award amounts for the competition. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) To the extent practicable, any 

services the participant receives during 

the project year from another Federal 

TRIO program or another federally 

funded program that serves populations 

similar to those served under the 

McNair program. 

* * * * * 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 1840–NEW11) 

* * * * * 

PART 694—GAINING EARLY 

AWARENESS AND READINESS FOR 

UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS 

(GEAR UP) 

■ 120. The authority citation for Part 

694 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–21 to 1070a– 

28. 

■ 121. 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— 

* * * * * 

■ 122. 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 123. 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) 

■ 124. Part 694 is amended by 

redesignating §§ 694.8, 694.9, 694.10, 

694.11, 694.12, 694.13, and 694.15 as 

follows: 

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 

■ 125. 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65799 

title III, or section 316 or 317 of the 

HEA, or a local educational agency; 

(2) Only participating schools with a 

7th grade cohort in which at least 75 

percent of the students are eligible for 

free or reduced-price lunch under the 

Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act; and 

(3) Only local educational agencies in 

which at least 50 percent of the students 

enrolled are eligible for free or reducedprice lunch under the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–23) 

■ 126. 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) 

■ 127. 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 

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) 

■ 128. 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— 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65800 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(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) 

■ 129. Section 694.14 is revised 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 

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) 

■ 130. 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) 

■ 131. Section 694.16 is added to read 

as follows: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65801 

§ 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)) 

■ 132. 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) 

■ 133. 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)) 

■ 134. 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) 

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)) 

■ 135. 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)) 

■ 136. 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
65802 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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)) 

■ 137. 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. 

(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) 

■ 138. 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; 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65803 

(h) Assistance with financial 

planning; 

(i) Career counseling and advising 

services; or 

(j) Advising students about 

transferring to other schools. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–24) 

■ 139. 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. 2010–24324 Filed 10–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES_2