[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 208 (Monday, October 29, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61248-61267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21068]
[[Page 61247]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Part 691
Academic Competitiveness Grant Program and National Science and
Mathematics Access To Retain Talent Grant Program; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 72 , No. 208 / Monday, October 29, 2007 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 61248]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 691
RIN 1840-AC92
[Docket ID ED-2007-OPE-0135]
Academic Competitiveness Grant Program and National Science and
Mathematics Access To Retain Talent Grant Program
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulations for the Academic
Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National Science and Mathematics Access
to Retain Talent Grant (National SMART Grant) programs. The Secretary
is amending these regulations to reduce administrative burden for
program participants and to clarify program requirements.
DATES: Effective Date: These regulations are effective July 1, 2008.
Implementation Date: The Secretary has determined, in accordance
with section 482(c)(2)(A) of the Higher Education Act, of 1965, as
amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1089(c)(2)(A)), that institutions that
administer the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs may, at their
discretion, choose to implement these final regulations in their
entirety, or by section, on or after November 1, 2007. For further
information, see the section entitled ``IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF THESE
REGULATIONS'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic Contact person and information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General information and information Sophia McArdle. Telephone:
related to recognition of rigorous (202) 219-7078 or via the
secondary school programs and eligible Internet:
majors. [email protected].
Information related to successful Jacquelyn Butler. Telephone:
completion of a rigorous secondary (202) 502-7890 or via the
school program. Internet:
[email protected].
Information related to grade point Carney McCullough. Telephone:
average. (202) 502-7639 or via the
Internet:
[email protected] or
Anthony Jones. Telephone:
(202) 502-7652 or via the
Internet:
[email protected].
Information related to academic year Fred Sellers. Telephone: (202)
progression and prior enrollment. 502-7502 or via the Internet:
[email protected].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the first contact person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 7, 2007, the Secretary published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the ACG and National SMART
Grant Programs in the Federal Register (72 FR 44050).
In the preamble to the NPRM, the Secretary discussed on pages 44052
through 44058 the major changes proposed in that document to strengthen
and improve the administration of the ACG and National SMART Grant
Programs authorized under the HEA (as amended by the Higher Education
Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-171), enacted on February 8,
2006, 20 U.S.C. 1070a-1 (HERA)). These include the following:
Amending Sec. 691.2 to add a definition for the term
Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP), as that term is used in
connection with the National SMART Grant Program.
Amending Sec. 691.6(a), (b), and (c) to require an
institution in which a student is currently enrolled to determine the
student's academic year progression based on the student's attendance
in all ACG and National SMART Grant eligible programs only at that
institution.
Amending Sec. 691.6 by adding a new paragraph (d)(3) to
provide that when determining the appropriate academic year for a
transfer student, the institution to which the student transferred must
count both (a) the number of credit or clock hours earned by the
student at prior institutions that are accepted for the student, and
(b) an estimated number of weeks of instructional time completed by the
student.
Amending Sec. 691.6 by adding paragraphs (e), (f), (g),
and (h) to provide for three alternative methods to determine the weeks
of instructional time for a student's academic year progression, and to
provide that an institution choosing to use one of these alternative
methods must do so for all students enrolled in the eligible program.
Amending Sec. 691.6 by adding a new paragraph (d)(2) to
clarify that when determining academic year progression for a student
(a) an institution may not assign any weeks of instructional time to
certain credit or clock hours accepted toward a student's eligible
program if those credit or clock hours were earned from Advanced
Placement (AP) programs, International Baccalaureate (IB) programs,
testing out, life experience, other similarly earned credits or credits
earned while not enrolled as a regular student in an ACG or National
SMART Grant eligible program, or coursework that is not at the
postsecondary level, such as remedial coursework; and (b) an
institution must assign weeks of instructional time to determine
National SMART Grant eligibility for periods in which a student was
enrolled in an ACG-eligible program before declaring, or certifying his
or her intent to declare, an eligible major.
Amending Sec. 691.6 by adding paragraph (e) to provide
that a student can request and receive an exact determination of his or
her academic year standing and to provide that, if the institution
performs an exact accounting, it may not employ any of the alternative
methods for determining that student's academic year standing reflected
in Sec. 691.6(f), (g), or (h).
Amending Sec. 691.15 by adding paragraph (g) to clarify
that, for purposes of eligibility for ACG and National SMART Grants, an
institution that assesses grade point average (GPA) on a numeric scale
other than a 4.0 scale must ensure that its minimum GPA requirement
meets the same numeric standard as a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher on
a 4.0 scale.
Amending Sec. 691.15 by adding paragraph (f)(1) to
clarify that institutions are required to calculate a student's GPA for
determining second-year ACG eligibility as follows:
[cir] For a student who transfers to an institution that accepts
into the student's ACG eligible program at least the credit or clock
hours for one academic year, but for less than two academic years, the
institution must calculate the student's GPA using the
[[Page 61249]]
grades from all coursework accepted into the student's ACG eligible
program.
[cir] For a student who transfers to an institution that accepts
less than the credit or clock hours for an academic year into the
student's ACG eligible program, the institution must calculate the
student's GPA by combining the grades from all coursework accepted into
the student's ACG eligible program with the grades for coursework
earned at the current institution through the payment period in which
the student completes the credit or clock hours for his or her first
academic year.
Amending Sec. 691.15 by adding paragraph (f)(2) to
require that, for a transfer student who transfers from one institution
to another institution at which the student is eligible for a National
SMART Grant, the subsequent institution determines that student's
eligibility for the first payment period using one of two methods,
depending on whether it incorporates the grades from the student's
previous coursework that it accepts on transfer into the student's GPA
at the subsequent institution.
Amending Sec. 691.15(b) to extend eligibility for a
first-academic-year ACG to any student who enrolls as a regular student
in an ACG eligible program while in high school provided that the
student is beyond the age of compulsory school attendance.
Amending Sec. 691.15 by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to
require an institution to document a student's eligible major and
progress in the eligible program and major by maintaining
documentation, such as the following: (a) Documentation of the declared
major, including written declaration of intent to declare an eligible
major provided by the student; and (b) written documentation showing
that the student is progressing in coursework leading to a degree in
the student's intended or declared eligible major; and (c) written
documentation that the student is enrolling in the courses necessary to
complete a degree in the intended or declared eligible major.
Amending Sec. 691.17 to provide a process for
institutions of higher education to request additional majors to be
added to the list of eligible majors for National SMART Grants.
Amending Sec. 691.15(b) to require that, in order to
successfully complete a rigorous secondary school program of study, a
student must obtain a high school diploma or, for a home-schooled
student, receive a high school diploma or parental certification of
completion of a secondary school education.
Amending Sec. 691.16(b) to allow State educational
agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) to request
recognition of rigorous secondary school programs of study for school
years beyond the immediate next school year.
Amending Sec. 691.16(d)(1) so that advanced or honors
secondary school programs of study continue to be recognized as
rigorous secondary school programs of study by the Secretary for school
years subsequent to the 2005-2006 school year.
There are no significant differences between the NPRM and these
final regulations resulting from public comment or legislative action.
Implementation Date of These Regulations
Section 482(c) of the HEA requires that regulations affecting
programs under Title IV of the HEA be published in final form by
November 1 prior to the start of the award year (July 1) to which they
apply. However, that section also permits the Secretary to designate
any regulation as one that an entity subject to the regulation may
choose to implement earlier and the conditions under which the entity
may implement the provisions early.
Consistent with the intent of this regulatory effort to reduce
administrative burden for program participants and to clarify program
requirements for the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs, the
Secretary is using the authority granted her under section 482(c) to
designate all regulations subject to that section included in this
document for early implementation at the discretion of each
institution. Therefore, the regulations in this document may be
implemented early in their entirety, or by section (e.g., all of Sec.
691.6 or all of Sec. 691.15), but not by paragraph, because related
provisions (provisions within a section, at the very least) should be
implemented contemporaneously. Moreover, because these final
regulations replace transitional guidance that had been provided to
institutions, institutions must make sure that any early implementation
of the final regulations is consistent with the discussion in this
document, notwithstanding the information provided in the transitional
guidance the Department issued regarding the implementation of academic
year progression for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 award years.
Institutions must maintain documentation of the early implementation
and must continue with the early implementation once it has been
initiated.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to the Secretary's invitation in the NPRM published on
August 7, 2007 (72 FR 44050), 52 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--and suggested changes the law does not authorize the Secretary
to make. We also do not address comments pertaining to issues that were
not within the scope of the NPRM.
General Comments
Several commenters stated that the ACG and National SMART Grant
Programs are overly burdensome to implement. As noted in the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 section of this preamble, those comments relate
to the basic structure of the program, as established in the HEA. While
we cannot modify statutory program requirements through regulations, to
the extent possible, we have tried to reduce the administrative burden
associated with carrying out the statutory requirements governing the
ACG and National SMART Grant Programs. We believe the final regulations
are necessary to implement the statute.
Two commenters expressed concern that the current definition of
``eligible program'' in Sec. 691.2(d) excludes certificate programs as
eligible programs under the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs. We
believe this definition is necessary to implement the programs in
accordance with the plain language of the statute. Moreover, we believe
that this definition encourages students to pursue associate or
bachelor degrees. Regardless of whether an institution offers both
degree and certificate programs, a student is only eligible for an ACG
or National SMART Grant if the student is confirmed as enrolled full-
time in the coursework of an ACG-eligible or National SMART Grant-
eligible program, respectively.
We encourage institutions to counsel each student about the
eligibility requirements for the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs,
including the need to enroll in an ``eligible program,'' as defined in
Sec. 691.2(d), early on. This counseling may include explaining that
if the student transfers from an ineligible program to an eligible
[[Page 61250]]
program, the student may receive an ACG or National SMART Grant as long
as he or she meets all other eligibility requirements.
Academic Year Progression (Sec. 691.6)
General
Comments: Several commenters objected to using the Title IV, HEA
definition of academic year, as measured in a minimum number of weeks
of instructional time and, for undergraduate programs, credit or clock
hours, for determining a student's academic year progression. The
commenters supported determining academic year progression based solely
on a student's grade level or credits earned. These commenters believed
that using the Title IV, HEA definition of academic year for the ACG
and National SMART Grant Programs was confusing, cumbersome, and
administratively burdensome, and could lead to unintended errors.
Discussion: While we appreciate the commenters' concerns, under
section 401A(c)(3) of the HEA, a student is eligible for an ACG in the
student's ``first academic year of a program of undergraduate
education'' and ``second academic year of a program of undergraduate
education,'' and for a National SMART Grant, in the ``third or fourth
academic year of a program of undergraduate education.'' The term
academic year is defined in section 481(a)(2) of the HEA, which applies
to all Title IV, HEA programs, including the ACG and National SMART
Grant Programs. We cannot interpret the term ``academic year'' in any
way that would be contrary to the statutory requirements in section
481(a)(2) of the HEA.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters questioned the relationship between an
exact accounting of weeks of instructional time for a student's
academic year progression under the proposed regulations and the
alternatives for determining the weeks of instructional time provided
in proposed Sec. 691.6(e), (f), (g), and (h) for programs that
calculate payments under Sec. 691.63(b) and (c) (e.g., nonterm
programs). Another commenter supported the flexibility offered by
proposed Sec. 691.6(e), (f), (g), and (h), but indicated that the
commenter's institution expected to retain its current policy of using
the exact accounting method because it agrees that an exact accounting
is most beneficial for students. One commenter believed that programs
that do not calculate payments under Sec. 691.63(b) and (c) also could
use the grade-level alternative under proposed Sec. 691.6(h) for
determining students' weeks of instructional time. One commenter
questioned whether transfer credits were subject to an exact
accounting.
Discussion: We consider an exact accounting of the credit or clock
hours and weeks of instructional time to be the best method to
determine any student's academic year progression because it is the
most accurate. We further agree with the commenter who believed an
exact accounting is more beneficial to students than estimating their
academic year progression because it is the most accurate
determination. We understand, however, that this better information
places more administrative burden on an institution having to conduct
an exact accounting for its students. The regulations, therefore, allow
some flexibility for certain programs to use alternative methods to
estimate a student's academic year progression. The alternative methods
in Sec. 691.6(f), (g), and (h), which allow institutions to estimate
the number of weeks of instructional time when determining academic
year progression, may be used for certain eligible programs and must be
used for transfer students.
We are providing in Sec. 691.6(f), (g), and (h) alternative
methods for determining weeks of instructional time for institutions
calculating payments for programs under Sec. 691.63(b) and (c) because
these institutions generally have not had to account precisely for the
weeks of instructional time completed by individual students in order
to be compliant with the Title IV, HEA academic year for Title IV
purposes. The alternatives are based on specified criteria that will
provide consistent measures for students enrolled in those programs
while providing a less burdensome way for institutions to estimate
academic year progression.
In contrast, institutions that calculate payments for eligible
programs under Sec. 691.63(d) and (e) must account for the actual
number of weeks a student attends classes in their academic year
progression calculations under Title IV, HEA. Using an exact accounting
of credit or clock hours and weeks of instructional time to determine
academic year progression (apart from determining weeks of
instructional time for transfer credits) is, therefore, the only
appropriate option for these institutions under the HEA. For this
reason, we do not provide the alternatives under proposed Sec.
691.6(e), (f), (g), and (h) for determining weeks of instructional time
for these eligible programs.
For transfer students, because the proposed changes to Sec.
691.6(a), (b), and (c) require an institution to determine a student's
academic year progression based on the student's attendance in all ACG
and National SMART Grant eligible programs only at the institution in
which the student is currently enrolled, an institution is no longer
required to do an exact accounting of a student's academic year
progression at all institutions. Therefore, when determining the
appropriate academic year for a transfer student under Sec.
691.6(d)(3), the institution to which the student transferred must
count the number of credit or clock hours earned by the student at
prior institutions that are accepted toward the student's ACG-or
National SMART Grant-eligible program, and estimate the number of weeks
of instructional time completed by the student.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters believed that the proposed regulations
should be revised to incorporate, for the 2008-2009 and subsequent
award years, the transitional guidance the Department issued regarding
the implementation of academic year progression for the 2006-2007 and
2007-2008 award years, including the guidance we provided in Dear
Colleague letter GEN-06-18. This transitional guidance permitted
programs eligible to calculate payments under Sec. 691.63(b) and (c)
to make certain assumptions when determining a student's academic year
progression for ACG and National SMART Grant eligibility. The guidance
also covered the treatment of transfer students, the extension of the
fourth academic year for National SMART Grant eligibility, and the
second academic year of associate degree programs for ACG eligibility.
The common theme in the comments that mentioned the Department's
transitional guidance was that the guidance provided institutions with
more flexibilities in administering the ACG and National SMART Grant
Programs than is available under the proposed regulations, and that
these flexibilities provided significant burden relief and assisted
them in addressing particular students' circumstances.
Discussion: Following the creation of the ACG and National SMART
Grant Programs and based on the need to implement the programs quickly,
the Department determined that it was appropriate to provide
transitional guidance to relieve administrative burden on institutions
during the two initial award years of implementation of
[[Page 61251]]
the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs. The relief provided in the
transitional guidance mostly related to the treatment of transfer
students for these programs and to determining weeks of instructional
time completed at traditional academic calendar institutions. The
flexibilities provided in the transitional guidance were intended to
ease the transition for institutions as they established procedures for
these new programs. The negotiated rulemaking proceeding for these
regulations gave the participants time to address these issues in more
detail, and these regulations put in place modified requirements for
institutions to use to administer the ACG and National SMART Grant
programs on an ongoing basis.
In addition, the extensions of fourth-academic-year National SMART
Grant eligibility and second-academic-year of associate degree programs
for ACG eligibility are no longer needed because all students now have
an opportunity to qualify for awards during the appropriate academic
year. Starting with the 2008-2009 award year, institutions will be
required to comply fully with the HEA provisions for the ACG and
National SMART Grant Program and these final regulations.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters requested guidance on how to determine an
individual student's academic year progression when the student's
progression has been based on the Department's transitional guidance
for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 award years and the student's academic
year level is changed by the implementation of these final regulations
in 2008-2009. One commenter suggested that, if we are unable to
incorporate the transitional guidance into the final regulations, we
should at least ``grandfather'' the transitional guidance for
continuing students who may otherwise regress in applicable academic
years.
Discussion: For 2008-2009 and subsequent award years, an
institution must determine a student's academic year progression in
accordance with the HEA provisions for the ACG and National SMART Grant
Programs and these final regulations. We believe that this new
framework may delay awards for some students until they progress to the
point they were previously deemed to have reached, but most of these
students will still be eligible to receive the same amount of grant
funds from that point forward. A student who received a third-academic-
year National SMART Grant Scheduled Award in the 2007-2008 award year
under the transitional guidance may, for example, now be considered to
be in the second academic year in his or her National SMART Grant-
eligible program in the 2008-2009 award year. That student would no
longer be eligible for a National SMART Grant until the student enrolls
in the fourth academic year of his or her National SMART Grant eligible
program. In this example, the student has already received a third-year
National SMART Grant award; thus the student may not be paid for any
remaining eligibility for a second-year ACG award, even if otherwise
eligible, because the student is presumed to have completed an ACG-
eligible program through the second academic year at that same
institution in order to qualify for the third-year award the student
previously received. Because a student who has completed an ACG-
eligible program through the second academic year is not eligible for a
second-year ACG award, the student in the example is not eligible for a
second-year ACG award.
Note, however, that the outcome of this example would be different
if the student received the third-academic-year National SMART Grant
award at another institution and then, upon transfer, was classified as
being in his or her second academic year. If this transfer student were
otherwise eligible, the student may receive any second-academic-year
ACG Scheduled Award not already received at the prior institution
because, under Sec. 691.6(a), (b), and (c), academic year progression
only takes into account attendance at the transfer student's current
institution.
We do not believe it is necessary to ``grandfather'' the
transitional guidance for continuing students because they generally
will have the opportunity to progress to the academic year level they
would otherwise be at under the transitional guidance.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the relationship
of academic year progression to the Scheduled Award. The commenter
questioned whether an otherwise eligible student who receives a
Scheduled Award within an award year and progresses to the next
academic year within the same award year would be eligible to receive
another ACG or National SMART Grant for the next academic year in that
award year.
Discussion: An ACG or National SMART Grant Scheduled Award is the
amount a full-time student would be paid for a full academic year
without respect to any award year. Unlike the Federal Pell Grant
Program in which a student starts a new Scheduled Award with each new
award year, a student receiving an ACG or National SMART Grant
Scheduled Award starts a new Scheduled Award when the student starts a
new academic year without reference to whether a new award year has
commenced. For example, a program is offered in quarters with 10 weeks
of instructional time and the academic year is defined as 36 credit
hours and 30 weeks of instructional time. An eligible student in this
program attends the quarters beginning in July, October, and January in
the 2007-2008 award year and receives a first-academic-year ACG
Scheduled Award over those three quarters. The student then continues
into the quarter that begins in April and ends in June, which is prior
to the next award year, and at the start of that quarter the student
meets the eligibility requirements to receive a second-academic-year
ACG Scheduled Award. In this example, the student would receive a
payment from the second-year Scheduled Award for the quarter beginning
in April. If the student continues to be eligible for a second-
academic-year Scheduled Award in the quarters beginning in July and
October of the 2008-2009 award year, the student would receive the
second and third disbursements of the second-academic-year Scheduled
Award during those quarters.
Changes: None.
Academic Year Progression (Sec. 691.6(a), (b), and (c))
Comments: Several commenters supported the changes reflected in
proposed Sec. 691.6(a), (b), and (c), which require an institution to
determine a student's academic year progression based on the student's
attendance in all ACG and National SMART Grant eligible programs only
at the institution in which the student is currently enrolled. The
commenters believed that the proposed changes would reduce burden and
provide some needed flexibilities.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters questioned the effect changing eligible
programs would have on a student's academic year progression under the
proposed regulations. One commenter believed that the proposed
regulations would prohibit a student from being eligible for an award
at an academic year level below the academic year level of any award
the student had received at a prior institution. Another commenter
believed that the regulations should provide that only credits that
apply directly to a student's eligible
[[Page 61252]]
program should be considered in determining a student's academic year
progression, without taking into account an institution's general
academic policies regarding degree audits.
Discussion: In general, under these regulations, an institution
must follow a student's academic year progression in all ACG- and
National SMART Grant-eligible programs attended by the student at that
institution. The receipt of ACGs or National SMART Grants at other
institutions would not affect the student's academic year progression
at the current institution, as is discussed further in the next
section, Transfer Students (Sec. 691.6(d)(3)).
Under these regulations, a student's academic year progression must
take into account (a) the credit or clock hours, including transferred
hours, credited toward, for ACGs, ACG-eligible programs, and, for
National SMART Grants, National SMART Grant-eligible programs at the
student's current institution; and (b) the weeks of instructional time
earned while enrolled in, for ACGs, ACG-eligible programs, and, for
National SMART Grants, ACG- and National SMART Grant-eligible programs
at the student's current institution, including any estimated weeks
based on transferred hours. For example, a student completes his or her
first academic year in weeks of instructional time and credit hours as
a part-time student while enrolled in a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree
program at an institution. At the end of the first academic year, the
student transfers to the same institution's school of architecture to
enroll full-time in the Bachelor of Architecture degree program. The
student is still considered to have completed a first academic year at
the institution for purposes of receiving an ACG. The student would be
considered to be entering his or her second academic year in an ACG-
eligible program at the institution by continuing in the Bachelor of
Architecture without reference to the number of credits applicable to
that degree from the Bachelor of Fine Arts degree program. A student
moving between National SMART Grant-eligible programs would be treated
similarly.
The ACG and National SMART Grant Programs have different
eligibility requirements because National SMART Grants are only
available for qualified students who are progressing in a designated
major in a National SMART Grant-eligible program. A student's
attendance in ACG-eligible programs will only count for the credit-or
clock-hour component of academic year progression for National SMART
Grants if the credit or clock hours earned while in an ACG-eligible
program are applicable to the National SMART Grant eligible program.
For the weeks-of-instructional-time component, under Sec.
691.6(d)(2)(ii), a student is considered to have accrued weeks of
instructional time in a National SMART Grant-eligible program while the
student was enrolled in ACG-eligible programs.
In determining a student's academic year progression, an
institution must always take into consideration only those credit or
clock hours applicable to the student's attendance in, for ACGs, ACG-
eligible programs, and for National SMART Grants, National SMART Grant-
eligible programs. In making these determinations, an institution may
follow its general academic policies regarding degree audits. For
example, an institution may consider all credits to be generally
applicable to a student's bachelor's degree program under its academic
policies until such time as it performs a degree audit or otherwise
performs an exact accounting of a student's academic year progression.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked at what point in time would an
institution determine whether a student is enrolled in a National SMART
Grant-eligible program for the purpose of determining that student's
academic year progression for a National SMART Grant. The commenter
noted that, for National SMART Grant purposes, an eligible program is
defined as one that leads to a bachelor's degree in a National SMART
Grant-eligible major. The commenter questioned whether a student is
considered to be enrolled in a National SMART Grant-eligible program
(1) only if he or she has declared or intends to declare a National
SMART Grant eligible major, or (2) as long as an eligible major is
offered within that program.
Discussion: A student's eligibility for a National SMART Grant is
based upon his or her pursuit of an eligible major. A student
demonstrates this pursuit by declaring an eligible major or
demonstrating his or her intent to declare an eligible major.
Accordingly, under Sec. 691.6(d)(2)(ii), a student may be considered
to be enrolled in a National SMART Grant-eligible program only if the
student has declared a National SMART Grant-eligible major, or
demonstrated his or her intent to declare an eligible major, in
accordance with Sec. 691.15(c)(2).
Changes: None.
Transfer Student (Sec. 691.6(d)(3))
Comments: Several commenters supported the requirement in proposed
Sec. 691.6(d)(3) that, when determining the appropriate academic year
for a transfer student, the institution to which the student
transferred must count the number of credit or clock hours earned by
the student at prior institutions that are accepted into the student's
ACG-or National SMART Grant-eligible program, and estimate the number
of weeks of instructional time completed by the student as determined
by a formula provided in the proposed regulations.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters objected to excluding the types of credit
or clock hours described in proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(2) when assigning
weeks of instructional time for the purpose of calculating academic
year progression. In particular, commenters believed it would be
difficult for institutions to know whether the transferred credit or
clock hours were earned in an ACG- or National SMART Grant-eligible
program. One commenter was concerned that, in order to comply with the
proposed regulations, an institution would need to collect
documentation and perform evaluations beyond those normally required
for transfer of credit or clock hours to determine whether the credit
or clock hours would have associated estimated weeks of instructional
time. Two commenters believed that, under the proposed regulations, an
institution would be required to perform an exact accounting of weeks
of instructional time for transfer credits and believed this
requirement would be difficult to implement if the institution were
using one of the alternative methods of determining weeks of
instructional time under proposed Sec. 691.6(e), (f), (g), and (h).
These commenters also questioned whether a student could request an
exact accounting of weeks of instructional time for the transferred
credit or clock hours, what the appropriate treatment would be for
credit or clock hours earned in summer courses at other institutions
without a written agreement between institutions, and what the
appropriate treatment would be for the late receipt of credit or clock
hours on transfer by an institution at a time subsequent to a student's
initial enrollment at that institution. One commenter questioned
whether the prior receipt of ACGs or National SMART Grants affected a
student's academic year progression at a student's current institution.
Discussion: We recognize the difficulty of determining whether
credit or clock hours accepted on transfer should be excluded from an
institution's
[[Page 61253]]
calculation of weeks of instructional time under Sec. 691.6(d)(2).
Nonetheless, institutions must determine a student's eligibility for
the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs and, for transfer students,
an institution is responsible for determining the credit or clock hours
accepted on transfer that apply to a student's ACG- or National SMART
Grant-eligible program and estimating the number of weeks of
instructional time associated with those hours. With respect to the
exclusions identified in Sec. 691.6(d)(2) and the treatment of
transfer students, an institution may rely on the documentation it
normally collects from incoming transfer students to evaluate transfer
credits. An institution is not required to collect additional
documentation, and, unless the institution has information to the
contrary, may consider all credit or clock hours accepted on transfer
as having been earned while enrolled in an ACG- and National SMART
Grant-eligible program. Correspondingly, if an institution has
information indicating that the transferred credit or clock hours fall
into one of the exclusions in Sec. 691.6(d)(2), it must exclude those
from its calculation of weeks of instructional time for the transferred
student.
Under Sec. 691.6(d)(3), an institution would never perform an
exact accounting of weeks of instructional time for transfer credits
but would estimate the number of weeks of instructional time completed
by a transfer student. Under the regulations, for transfer students,
the estimated number of weeks of instructional time must correspond to
the credit or clock hours accepted in the same ratio as the weeks of
instructional time in the eligible program's academic year is to the
credit or clock hours in the academic year of the student's ACG- or
National SMART Grant-eligible program.
For a student who transfers credit or clock hours into an ACG- or
National SMART Grant-eligible program from attending a summer term at
another institution or for whom the current institution receives credit
or clock hours subsequent to the student's initial enrollment, the
institution would estimate the number of weeks of instructional time
completed by the student in the same manner as for all other
transferred credit or clock hours.
As previously addressed under Academic Year Progression (Sec.
691.6(a), (b), and (c)), a student's prior receipt of ACG or National
SMART Grant awards at other institutions does not affect a student's
academic year progression at his or her current institution, but the
student cannot receive a duplicate award for the same academic year at
the second institution. The current institution may only evaluate the
credits accepted on transfer into the student's ACG- or National SMART
Grant-eligible program in determining the student's academic year
progression. While the receipt of ACGs and National SMART Grants at
other institutions does not affect a student's academic year
progression at his or her current institution, the current institution
must always ensure that, in accordance with section 401A(d)(2)(B) of
the HEA, an eligible student only receives one ACG for each of the
first two academic years of an undergraduate program and one National
SMART Grant for each of the third and fourth academic years of a
bachelor's degree program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether an institution that uses the
grade-level alternative under Sec. 691.6(h) would be required to
determine the academic years completed by a transfer student in
accordance with proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(3) or whether the institution
would do so by applying the credit hours the institution accepts on
transfer toward the student's grade level in accordance with proposed
Sec. 691.6(h).
Discussion: We believe the commenter has identified a situation
where it would be inappropriate to calculate a student's weeks of
instructional time in accordance with proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(3).
Because the grade-level alternative method to determining weeks of
instructional time under proposed Sec. 691.6(h) is driven by the
credit hours accrued by the student, including transfer credits, the
requirements for determining academic year progression for transfer
students in proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(3) would not apply when an
institution uses the alternative method in proposed Sec. 691.6(h).
Changes: We have revised proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(3) to provide
that, for an eligible program for which an institution determines
estimated weeks of instructional time based on grade level under Sec.
691.6(h), the institution must include the credit hours accepted on
transfer into a student's eligible program when determining the
student's grade level in accordance with Sec. 691.6(d)(2) and (h).
Comment: One commenter asked whether proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(3)
would apply only to eligible programs subject to a particular payment
formula under Sec. 691.63 or to all eligible programs.
Discussion: Proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(3) applies to all eligible
programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter questioned whether the determination of the
estimated weeks of instructional time for transferred credit or clock
hours for a transfer student would apply only upon enrollment at the
current institution and not for subsequent evaluations of a student's
academic year progression. For example, the commenter questioned
whether the transferred hours would be incorporated in determining the
weeks of instructional time under the alternative methods provided in
Sec. 691.6(g) and (h), based on credits and grade level, respectively.
Discussion: The alternative methods of estimating weeks of
instructional time provided in Sec. 691.6(f), (g), and (h), along with
an exact accounting of weeks of instructional time, apply only to
attendance at the current institution. A transfer student's estimated
weeks of instructional time, as calculated in accordance with Sec.
691.6(d)(3), would be added to the weeks of instructional time the
student accrues at the current institution, as determined based on an
exact accounting or in accordance with Sec. 691.6(f) or (g). It is
unnecessary to estimate the weeks of instructional time under Sec.
691.6(d)(3) when using the alternative method described in Sec.
691.6(h). The methodology for estimating weeks of instructional time
under Sec. 691.6(g) is the same as that in Sec. 691.6(d)(3), so it
may appear that proposed Sec. 691.6(g) applies to transfer credits.
If the estimated weeks of instructional time for credit or clock
hours accepted on transfer are applicable to a first or second academic
year in an ACG-eligible program, institutions are reminded that, under
Sec. 691.6(d)(2)(ii), those estimated weeks of instructional time
would apply toward National SMART Grant academic year progression
regardless of whether the credit or clock hours were earned while the
student was enrolled in a National SMART Grant-eligible program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter questioned whether the provisions of
proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(3) would apply to a student attending more than
one eligible institution under a written agreement, both during the
period covered by the agreement and upon returning to the home
institution.
Discussion: To the extent the home institution is calculating the
student's payments for payment periods under its academic calendar,
including the credit or clock hours being earned at another eligible
institution, the provisions of Sec. 691.6(d)(3) would not apply
because the student would not be transferring these credits or clock
hours. However, if the home institution does not calculate
[[Page 61254]]
the student's payment for a payment period, the credit or clock hours
would be treated as transfer credit or clock hours and would be subject
to the provisions of Sec. 691.6(d)(3).
Changes: None.
Alternative Methods for Determining Weeks of Instructional Time (Sec.
691.6(e), (f), (g), and (h))
Comments: Several commenters supported proposed Sec. 691.6(e),
(f), (g), and (h), which would provide three alternative methods for
determining the weeks of instructional time for a student's academic
year progression in eligible programs for which payments are determined
under Sec. 691.63(b) and (c). The alternative method in Sec. 691.6(f)
counts weeks of instructional time based on the number of terms the
student has attended (terms-attended alternative). The alternative
method in Sec. 691.6(g) attributes weeks of instructional time to the
credit hours earned by the student (credits-earned alternative). The
alternative method in Sec. 691.6(g) uses student's grade level as a
basis for determining weeks of instructional time completed (grade-
level alternative). An extensive discussion of these alternatives is
found in the preamble of the NPRM (see 72 FR 44053-44054).
Several commenters objected to the applicability of proposed Sec.
691.6(d)(2), under the credits-earned and grade-level alternative
methods reflected in proposed Sec. 691.6(g) and (h), respectively,
because of the types of credits that are not counted under those
methods. Proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(2) would not permit an institution to
allocate weeks of instructional time to certain credits that were not
earned at postsecondary institutions or as part of an ACG- or National
SMART Grant-eligible program.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support and concerns.
However, proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(2) is designed to work with the
alternative methods in Sec. 691.6(f), (g), and (h), so that a
student's academic year progression consistently excludes credits that
do not have weeks of instructional time in an ACG- or National SMART
Grant-eligible program associated with them.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter was concerned that proposed Sec.
691.6(e)(2)(i) allows only institutions that determine payments for the
student's eligible program under Sec. 691.63(b) or (c) to use any of
the three alternatives under proposed Sec. 691.6(f), (g), and (h). The
commenter noted that a similar restriction is stated in proposed Sec.
691.6(f)(1) and (g)(1), but that these paragraphs use the language
``may determine payments'' under Sec. 691.63(b) or (c) rather than
``uses'' those payment formulas. In addition, the commenter notes that
the restriction is not repeated in any form in proposed Sec. 691.6(h).
Discussion: These alternative methods of estimating weeks of
instructional time only apply to programs for which payments are
calculated under Sec. 691.63(b) or (c) because institutions using
these payment methods are not required to account directly for the
weeks of instructional time when calculating payments for their
programs. If a program were eligible for payment calculations under
Sec. 691.63(b) or (c) but, in fact, calculated payments under Sec.
691.63(d), the institution would be required to accurately determine
the weeks of instructional time attended by the student when making
payment calculations, and it would be inappropriate to provide these
three alternatives.
Changes: We have revised proposed Sec. 691.6(f)(1) and (g)(1) by
replacing the words ``may determine'' with the word ``determines'' in
order to make these provisions consistent with proposed Sec.
691.6(e)(2)(i). We have also revised Sec. 691.6(h) to make it
consistent with these other provisions.
Comments: One commenter requested clarification on whether an
institution must use only one alternative for all students in a program
unless an exception is made to use an exact accounting for a given
student. The commenter also questioned whether an institution is
required to document the basis for its determination to use an
alternative method or an exact accounting.
Discussion: As provided under proposed Sec. 691.6(e)(2)(ii), an
institution must use the same alternative method for all students in an
eligible program unless the institution performs an exact accounting,
either on its own initiative or upon a student's request. While an
institution must document whether it has used an alternative method or
exact accounting to determine a student's weeks of instructional time,
it is not required to document the basis for its decision.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter questioned whether, in using an alternative
method of determining weeks of instructional time, an institution might
identify specific groups of students in the eligible program for whom
it would always perform an exact accounting. For example, an
institution might use the grade-level alternative but perform an exact
accounting for all students with AP or IB credits.
Discussion: We believe that an institution should use the same
alternative for determining weeks of instructional time for students in
a program except when the institution initiates or performs, pursuant
to a student's request, an exact accounting of weeks of instructional
time. Accordingly, we believe it would be appropriate for an
institution to identify a group or groups of students in the eligible
program for whom it would always perform an exact accounting and then
to use the same alternative method for determining the weeks of
instructional time for all other students in the eligible program.
Changes: We have clarified in Sec. 691.6(e)(2)(ii) that
institutions must use the same alternative method for determining weeks
of instructional time for all students enrolled in the eligible program
for whom an exact accounting is not performed.
Comments: One commenter questioned how the application of the
alternative methods described in Sec. 691.6(f), (g), and (h) would be
affected by a student attending some classes offered in an academic
calendar outside the one offered by the student's eligible program or
classes offered as part of intersessions between semesters that may be
treated as part of a semester to qualify for payment calculations under
Sec. 691.63(b) or (c).
Discussion: We believe these situations would have little impact on
how an institution would apply the alternative methods described in
Sec. 691.6(f), (g), and (h). A student taking some courses outside the
academic calendar of his or her eligible program would still have
payments calculated based on the eligible program's calendar and the
courses would be considered to fall within the eligible program's
calendar. Intersessions treated as part of a semester would be
similarly considered to fall within a semester in the eligible
program's calendar for purposes of these alternative methods.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked for clarification regarding the
impact of using the grade-level alternative under proposed Sec.
691.6(h) when an institution is required to remove from consideration
credits that are not associated with weeks of instructional time under
proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(2). The commenter questioned the relationship
of credits with which no weeks of instructional time are associated
(e.g., AP credits) to the formula in proposed Sec. 691.6(h)(3) for
determining whether an institution may use the grade-level
[[Page 61255]]
alternative. The commenter further questioned whether an institution
that qualifies to use the grade-level alternative based on an
institution-wide analysis, rather than a program-level analysis under
Sec. 691.6(h)(3), must use the grade-level alternative for all of its
eligible programs.
Discussion: Under proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(2), an institution must
exclude credits without weeks of instructional time in determining a
student's grade level for purposes of proposed Sec. 691.6(h)(2) when
it determines the student's academic year progression. The formula in
Sec. 691.6(h)(3) applies only to full-time, full-year students during
periods of enrollment in ACG- and National SMART Grant-eligible
programs at the institution. To take into consideration credits without
weeks in applying the formula in Sec. 691.6(h)(3) would distort the
academic year progression for those students.
If an institution uses an institution-wide analysis under the
grade-level alternative, it must use the grade-level alternative for
all of its ACG- and National SMART Grant-eligible programs. We believe
that Sec. 691.6(h)(3) should be changed to clarify this requirement.
Changes: We have added paragraph (h)(2)(iii) to Sec. 691.6 to
clarify that an institution that makes a determination under paragraph
(h)(2)(i) of that section on an institutional basis must use the grade-
level alternative method for all students at the institution for whom
it does not perform an exact accounting of weeks of instructional time
completed. We also have amended Sec. 691.6(e)(2) to reference this
requirement.
Comments: Several commenters supported continuing guidance similar
to the transitional guidance for 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 that an
institution may use one of the alternative methods or do an exact
accounting to determine weeks of instructional time on a case-by-case
basis without any restriction. Commenters also believed that the case-
by-case determinations should include going from exact accounting back
to using one of the alternative methods. The commenters believed that
this type of flexibility would assist them in ensuring that students
would more fully benefit under the ACG and National SMART Grant
Programs.
Discussion: The alternative methods of determining academic year
progression are provided for programs for which institutions do not
generally track the exact number of weeks of instructional time
attended by students. We believe that the alternative methods would not
ensure the accurate determination of a student's academic year
progression if institutions were permitted to use the alternatives on a
case-by-case basis as suggested by the commenters.
We do not believe it is appropriate for a student's academic year
progression to be determined under one of the alternative methods once
an institution implements an exact accounting for that student. We
consider an exact accounting of the weeks of instructional time
completed by a student to always be the best evaluation of that
student's academic year standing when determining the student's
eligibility for an ACG or National SMART Grant.
Changes: None.
Limitations on Determining Weeks of Instructional Time (Sec.
691.6(d)(2))
Comments: Many commenters objected to the restrictions in proposed
Sec. 691.6(d)(2) that an institution may not assign any weeks of
instructional time to credit or clock hours accepted toward meeting a
student's eligible program if the student earned (a) the credit or
clock hours from Advanced Placement (AP) programs, International
Baccalaureate (IB) programs, testing out, life experience, or other
similar competency measures, (b) the credit or clock hours while not
enrolled as a regular student in an ACG or National SMART Grant
eligible program, or (c) the credit or clock hours for coursework that
is not at the postsecondary level, such as remedial coursework. The
commenters believed that these restrictions should be eliminated
because they result in significant burden on institutions implementing
these programs, require manual reviews of student records, reduce
institutional flexibility, penalize students, and are inconsistent with
the requirements of the other Title IV, HEA programs. The commenters
generally believed that no credit or clock hours credited toward a
student's eligible program should be excluded from estimating a
student's academic progression in weeks of instructional time.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns and acknowledge
the burden associated with calculating a student's weeks of
instructional time under this framework. However, we believe it is
important not to allocate weeks of instructional time to credits not
earned at the postsecondary level in order to be consistent with the
statute and to preserve maximum grant eligibility for these students.
Students earn the credits described in Sec. 691.6(d)(2)(i)(A) through
(C) while not enrolled in an ACG- or National SMART Grant-eligible
program, and, therefore, we believe that it would not be appropriate
for these credits to have weeks of instructional time in an ACG- or
National SMART Grant-eligible program associated with them. Moreover,
we believe that Sec. 691.6(d)(2)(i) is necessary to ensure that an
institution accurately determines a student's academic year progression
in his or her ACG or National SMART Grant eligible program.
Changes: None.
Exact Accounting; Student Request To Determine Academic Year Level
(Sec. 691.6(e))
Comments: Several commenters believed that only an institution
should initiate an exact accounting of a student's academic year
progression. One commenter indicated that requiring institutions to
perform an exact accounting upon a student request would be burdensome.
Another did not believe students appreciated the distinctions in aid
eligibility that may result from an exact accounting.
Discussion: We continue to consider an exact calculation of the
weeks of instructional time completed by a student to always be the
best evaluation of that student's academic year standing when
determining the student's eligibility for an ACG or National SMART
Grant, and we believe a student should always have this option
available. However, we believe that institutions may counsel a student
on the implications of initiating an exact accounting so that the
student will understand all available options and that, in some
circumstances, an exact calculation could reduce or delay the aid a
student might receive under the estimate otherwise used by the
institution.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter questioned the meaning of the phrase
``including an accounting pursuant to paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this
section'' in proposed Sec. 691.6(e)(3).
Discussion: The reference to paragraph (e)(2)(ii) was an error; the
proper reference is to paragraph (e)(2)(iii).
Changes: We have revised Sec. 691.6(e)(3) to reference paragraph
(e)(2)(iii).
Comments: Several commenters believed that proposed Sec.
691.6(e)(2)(iii) provided that only a student could initiate an exact
accounting of academic year progression and questioned whether an
institution may initiate an exact accounting. One commenter asked what
we meant, in proposed Sec. 691.6(e)(3), when we used the word
``initiates.''
[[Page 61256]]
Discussion: While a student has a right to request that an
institution perform an exact accounting of his or her weeks of
instructional time, an institution can always choose to perform an
exact accounting of a student's weeks of instructional time pursuant to
Sec. 691.6(e)(3). An institution is considered to have ``initiated''
an exact accounting under proposed Sec. 691.6(e)(3) when the
institution performs an exact accounting.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter questioned whether using an exact accounting
for a student would apply to the student even after transfer to another
institution.
Discussion: The requirement that a student is always subject to an
exact accounting once one has been performed applies only to the
student's current institution. If the student transfers to another
institution, the new institution could, after accepting the prior
courses under the transfer procedures, determine the student's academic
year progression for courses taken at the new institution based on an
exact accounting or any of the alternative methods for determining
weeks of instructional time for the student in Sec. 691.6, provided
that the institution otherwise meets the requirements to use the
alternative method selected.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter was concerned that neither an institution
nor a student would have the benefit of understanding the implications
of choosing an exact accounting over an alternative method (or vice
versa) before committing to an exact accounting.
Discussion: The institution may counsel the student on whether to
ask for the exact accounting, but must use that information if the
calculation is made. An exact accounting provides the most accurate
determination of a student's eligibility. The alternative methods have
been adopted to ease the administrative burdens on institutions, rather
than to provide students with the opportunity to receive grants they
would not be entitled to under an exact accounting.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter had several questions relating to whether
an exact accounting of a student's academic year progression would
always preempt the use of the alternative methods for calculating weeks
of instructional time under proposed Sec. 691.6(f), (g), and (h).
First, the commenter questioned whether the decision to conduct an
exact accounting would apply only to the payment period in which the
exact accounting was conducted or to all subsequent payment periods, as
well. The commenter also questioned whether it mattered for future
determinations that an exact accounting was initiated by the
institution or at the request of the student. Finally, the commenter
questioned whether a student would be able to rescind his or her
request.
Discussion: An exact accounting is the best measure of a student's
academic year progression, and an institution must continue to use that
information in all subsequent payment periods during the student's
enrollment at that institution. No distinction exists for calculations
requested by a student or initiated by the institution, and a student
may not rescind his or her request for an exact accounting once it is
made.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter indicated that, because the commenter's
institution was unable to automate an exact accounting of a student's
academic year progression, the institution would be unable to perform
an exact accounting.
Discussion: When requested by a student, an institution is
responsible for performing exact accountings of academic year
progression regardless of whether its information systems would allow
the process to be automated. Institutions are expected to perform these
calculations manually in these circumstances.
Changes: None.
Academic Year Progression and Grade Point Average (GPA)
Comments: Several commenters questioned the effect changes in
determinations of student's academic year progression would have on the
student's relevant GPA. Two commenters noted that, with the termination
of the transitional guidance for the 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 award
years, institutions would no longer count weeks of instructional time
for some students and this would result in continuing students
regressing in academic year progression and would affect the students'
relevant GPA. One of the commenters suggested ``grandfathering'' the
GPA for these continuing students.
Discussion: The transitional guidance on academic year progression
for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 award years generally dealt with
estimating the weeks of instructional time in a student's academic year
progression. It did not affect the number of credit or clock hours
credited towards a student's ACG-or National SMART Grant-eligible
program. As previously noted, the end of the transitional guidance may
result in a student regressing in academic year progression due to a
reduced estimated number of weeks of instructional time calculated for
that student going forward. The GPA would be calculated appropriate to
a student's revised academic year standing. If a student were now
considered a first-year student, there would be no GPA requirement for
determining eligibility for a first-year ACG. If a student were now
considered a second-year student, the GPA for the first academic year
would be used to determine the student's eligibility for a second-year
ACG. For a National SMART Grant, the cumulative GPA would be unchanged
because there would be no change in the credit or clock hours credited
toward a student's eligible program. We do not believe there is any
need to ``grandfather'' the GPAs of continuing students.
Changes: None.
Grade Point Average (GPA) (Sec. 691.15)
General
Comment: One commenter expressed disappointment with our failure to
change the frequency with which institutions must calculate a National
SMART Grant student's GPA. The commenter would prefer that the GPA be
calculated annually rather than for each payment period. Another
commenter believed that an annual calculation would significantly ease
the institution's administrative burden without a loss of integrity to
the program.
Discussion: Section 401A(c)(3)(B)(ii) of the HEA provides that, in
order to receive a second-year ACG, a student must have obtained a
cumulative GPA of at least 3.0 at the end of the student's first
academic year of study. In contrast, for eligibility for a National
SMART Grant, section 401A(c)(3)(C)(ii) requires a student to obtain a
cumulative GPA of at least 3.0, but does not limit that measurement to
a specific time. Because eligibility for a National SMART Grant must be
determined each payment period and payments for the National SMART
Grant Program are calculated for a payment period, we believe that it
is most appropriate to review the student's GPA for the National SMART
Grant Program each payment period.
Changes: None.
Numeric Equivalent (Sec. 691.15(b)(1)(iii)(D), 691.15(c)(3), and
691.15(g))
Comment: One commenter sought clarification on whether an
institution must calculate a numeric equivalent
[[Page 61257]]
GPA when a student completes certain courses that are not measured by a
standard numeric grading procedure in a program that otherwise assesses
grades on a standard 4.0 numeric scale. Specifically, the commenter
requested guidance on situations in which a student in such a program
completes some or all courses within a single term and those courses
are assessed using an alternative to the standard 4.0 numeric scale.
Discussion: Sections 691.15(b)(1)(iii)(D), (c)(3), and (g) focus on
entire programs, rather than individual courses, in assessing academic
performance using an alternative to a standard 4.0 numeric scale or a
numeric equivalent to a 4.0 scale. We believe that it would be
impractical to require institutions to convert every course that is
assessed using an alternative measurement to a numeric equivalent when
the preponderance of the program is assessed on a standard 4.0 numeric
scale, or a scale that can be converted to the numeric equivalent of a
4.0 scale. In general, if the program uses a 4.0 scale to assess a
student's GPA, or a numeric equivalent, it is not practical to require
a few courses within that program that are assessed on an alternative
scale to be converted to a numeric equivalent. However, an institution
would not be prohibited from conducting a conversion on a course-by-
course basis.
Changes: None.
Transfer GPA--ACG (Sec. 691.15(f)(1))
Comment: Although several commenters wrote in support of proposed
Sec. 691.15(f)(1) regarding GPA calculation for transfer students,
most of the commenters expressed concern that the proposed regulations
would increase administrative burden by adding another GPA calculation.
Some commenters believed that the requirements for determining GPA for
these students would result in institutions having to add a manual
process, while other commenters expressed concern that proposed Sec.
691.15(f)(1) would infringe on an institution's academic policies and
create more than one method for an institution to assess a GPA. One
commenter requested that institutions only be required to follow their
own policies for determining a student's GPA.
Two commenters requested clarification on whether an institution
must incorporate into a student's GPA the grades from the previous
institution's coursework that was accepted by the subsequent
institution upon transfer. They further requested clarification
regarding the following statement from the preamble that the commenters
believed conflicted with other preamble statements and could possibly
affect the interpretation of the regulatory language in Sec.
691.15(f)(1)(i): ``In conjunction with the proposed changes in Sec.
691.6(a), (b), and (c), an institution would no longer consider a
student's GPA from the student's first academic year in an eligible
program at another institution.'' (72 FR 44055)
Discussion: We proposed the changes in Sec. 691.15(f)(1) at the
request of the community and because we recognize the need for
consistent treatment of all ACG-eligible transfer students. Without the
proposed regulations, a student who has not yet completed a full
academic year could have been treated inconsistently by different
institutions. This inconsistency was because, in instances when a
student completes his or her first academic year after transferring,
institutions have been able to use their own policy on whether the
grades for the transfer credits are included in the GPA calculated to
determine the student's eligibility for the second-year ACG award.
Thus, depending on the current institution's policy, the grades from
the prior institution might or might not have been counted to determine
the student's eligibility for a second-year ACG award. In order to
prevent this from happening, Sec. 691.15(f)(1) has clarified that a
one-time calculation must be used to determine eligibility for second-
year ACG funds. Further, Sec. 691.15(f)(1) has clarified that an
institution must use the grades from the coursework earned at the prior
institution that it accepted into the student's eligible program to
determine the student's applicable GPA for these purposes. We
acknowledge that these extra steps in the GPA calculation for transfer
students may result in some additional burden. However, we believe that
any added burden associated with this one-time calculation is
outweighed by the need for equitable treatment of students. By
establishing a uniform procedure that either fits with the
institution's policy for incorporating accepted transfer courses or
provides for a one-time calculation, we believe more students are
ensured greater consistency in obtaining these funds.
Regarding the preamble language that the commenter perceived to be
inconsistent, we do not believe that, and did not intend for, the
sentence referenced by the commenter to conflict with other statements
in the preamble or the proposed regulatory language. The statement
emphasizes that under these regulations, including the requirements
regarding determination of academic year progression, institutions are
no longer required to use the GPA for all courses a transfer student
completed at another institution if the subsequent institution does not
accept those courses on transfer. Under these regulations, an
institution is only required to use the GPA associated with the courses
it accepts upon transfer into the student's eligible program, rather
than the GPA for all courses including those courses taken at the prior
institution that did not transfer.
Changes: None.
Transfer GPA--National SMART Grant (Sec. 691.15(f)(2))
Comment: One commenter questioned the practical application of
proposed Sec. 691.15(f)(2)(ii), which directs an institution that
accepts no credit or clock hours toward a student's eligible program to
consider the student ineligible for a National SMART Grant until the
student completes at least one payment period in an eligible program
with a qualifying GPA. The commenter asked how a student could be
considered in the third academic year or beyond if the institution did
not accept any credit or clock hours for that student.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the language in
proposed Sec. 691.15(f)(2)(ii) does not appear to have any practical
application.
Changes: We have deleted Sec. 691.15(f)(2)(ii).
Comment: Similar to the comments received on the proposed changes
to GPA calculations for an ACG-eligible transfer student, several
commenters wrote in support of the proposed changes reflected in Sec.
691.15(f)(2) regarding the GPA calculation for a transfer student
eligible for a National SMART Grant. Many of these commenters also
expressed concern that these proposed regulations would increase
administrative burden by adding another GPA calculation. Again, similar
to the proposed regulations for transfer students under the ACG
Program, some commenters believed these proposed regulations for
calculating the GPA under the National SMART Grant Program would
require a new manual process to be performed by an institution, while
other commenters were concerned the requirement would infringe upon an
institution's academic policies and create more than one required
method for calculating a GPA. Two commenters requested that the two
different methods for calculating GPAs for transfer students under each
[[Page 61258]]
program be combined into one policy to cover students transferring into
either program. One of the commenters specifically requested that the
proposed method set forth under the ACG Program be eliminated and
replaced with the proposed method under the National SMART Grant
Program.
Discussion: As with the ACG Program, we proposed these regulatory
changes at the request of the community and based on the need for
consistent treatment of students who transfer. The community requested
that the regulations describe the process for calculating a GPA for
transfer students for both institutions that incorporate grades from
transferred coursework and those that do not. The method of calculating
a GPA under Sec. 691.15(f)(2)(i) is a one-time calculation used only
to determine a transfer student's eligibility for the first payment
period of enrollment in a National SMART Grant-eligible program at the
new institution. An institution must use the grades from the coursework
earned at the prior institution that it accepted into the student's
eligible program to determine the student's applicable GPA for
determination of National SMART Grant eligibility. Further, with
differing policies among institutions, students would be treated
inequitably based on the institution to which they transfer if
institutions were not required to calculate the GPA under the
prescribed method. By establishing a uniform procedure that either fits
with the institution's policy for incorporating accepted transfer
courses or provides for a one-time calculation, we believe students are
ensured greater consistency in obtaining these funds.
Regarding the request to use only one GPA calculation method for
transfer students eligible for either the ACG or National SMART Grant
Program, we believe the specific differences in GPA requirements for
the two programs under section 401A(c)(3)(B) and (C) of the HEA warrant
different treatment. In addition, the community requested equitable
methods based on the frequency of the GPA calculations. We believe the
regulations fulfill these requirements and requests.
Changes: None.
Prior Enrollment in a Postsecondary Educational Program and Student
Eligibility (Sec. 691.15)
Comment: Several commenters supported proposed Sec.
691.15(b)(1)(ii)(C), which extends ACG eligibility to a student who
previously enrolled as a regular student in an ACG-eligible program
while in high school provided that the student was beyond the age of
compulsory school attendance during that prior enrollment.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support.
Changes: None.
Eligible Majors (Sec. Sec. 691.15 and 691.17)
Documenting Major (Sec. 691.15)
Comments: Several commenters stated that because institutions
already monitor academic progress under satisfactory academic progress
(SAP) policies and existing academic advising, requiring written
documentation to verify a student's progress in an eligible major would
be duplicative and would place an unreasonable burden on institutions.
The commenters suggested that the regulatory language be revised to
require only verification of SAP, as defined by the institution. In a
similar vein, two commenters stated that requiring written
documentation to verify that a student is progressing in an eligible
major at an appropriate pace creates significant administrative burden
on student financial aid administrators, forcing them to act as
academic advisors and academic program experts, and that a student's
academic major, academic level progression, and GPA are sufficient to
demonstrate the student's progress.
A few commenters requested clarification about the definition of
the term ``appropriate pace'' as used in the preamble to the NPRM and
an explanation of what documentation can be used to demonstrate that a
student is completing coursework at an appropriate pace in his or her
declared major. Commenters generally felt that what constitutes an
appropriate pace should be determined by individual institutions. One
commenter stated that, because each academic department at the
commenter's institution currently uses its own method to monitor
progress for all students within each major in its department,
requiring written documentation of a student's progress in the intended
or declared major would require a significant change in the
institution's policies for monitoring progress. The commenter explained
that all students, regardless of whether they are National SMART Grant
recipients, are monitored in the same way, and that requiring specific
documentation for National SMART Grant recipients represents an
intrusion by the Federal Government into an institution's academic
policies. The commenter further asserted that changing the
institution's process so that it only monitors progress of National
SMART Grant recipients could potentially result in violations of
student privacy because information about the financial status of
individual students (e.g., that they are Pell Grant recipients) would
be revealed to academic department personnel. One commenter thought
that, when reviewing program compliance, auditors and program reviewers
should take into account the complexities of dual majors and related
studies so that a student in these circumstances, whom the institution
believes to be making overall progress in his or her eligible major, is
not penalized. Another commenter asked for clarification on whether
documentation of progress in an eligible major must be maintained at
the financial aid office or elsewhere on campus. Finally, one commenter
proposed that student financial aid office policies should include
instructions on how to monitor a student's progress in an eligible
major.
Two commenters requested clarification on whether institutions can
use existing academic advising mechanisms (processes, degree audits,
databases, etc.) to meet the requirement that a student's progress in
an eligible major be documented. A few commenters asked whether the
term ``written,'' as used in Sec. 691.15(e), applies to automated
systems and encompasses electronic business practices such that
electronic documentation would constitute written documentation. For
example, they questioned whether an electronic record retained by an
institution that shows that a student has declared a major through an
electronic means via the institution's Web site meets the ``written''
requirement under this section.
A couple of commenters stated that the term ``annually'' in Sec.
691.15(e)(1) through (e)(3) is ambiguous. One of these commenters
suggested that monitoring should be limited to any student who received
at least one disbursement of a National SMART Grant during that
student's third academic year and that the review should occur after
the final third-year disbursement of a National SMART Grant, but prior
to the first disbursement of a fourth academic year National SMART
Grant. Yet another commenter suggested that progress in the major
should be determined prior to the first disbursement, rather than at
the time of award in early spring when an institution would have to
assume that the eligible major requirement would be met.
Discussion: We do not agree with the commenters that requiring
written documentation to verify progress in the major is duplicative of
SAP policies and existing academic advising. Institutions
[[Page 61259]]
must comply with section 401A(c)(3)(C)(i) of the HEA, which requires
that, to be eligible to receive a National SMART Grant, a student must
pursue a National SMART Grant-eligible major. SAP policies alone are
not sufficient to ensure compliance with these requirements. Further,
we do not agree that requiring written documentation of progress in an
eligible major places an unreasonable burden on institutions. The
documentation required is minimal. As long as the institution can
document that the student is full-time, has declared an eligible major
or demonstrated an intent to do so, and is taking at least one course
in the eligible major during the payment period, we will consider the
student to meet the minimum requirements needed to demonstrate he or
she is progressing in the eligible major at an appropriate pace for
that payment period, even if the student has a double major.
As we clarified in Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) GEN-07-07, published
on October 9, 2007, under Sec. 691.15(c)(2)(ii), a student is eligible
to receive a National SMART Grant if the student enrolls in the courses
necessary both to complete the degree program and to fulfill the
requirements of the eligible major. To meet this enrollment
requirement, a student must enroll in at least one course that meets
the specific requirements of the student's eligible major. We explained
in the preamble to the July 3, 2006 Interim Final Regulations that,
``[t]he Secretary believes this additional requirement fulfills the
statutory requirement because it further documents the student's
pursuit of an eligible major.'' (71 FR 37994) DCL GEN-07-07 can be
accessed from: http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/GEN0707.html.
The Department does not regulate a postsecondary educational
institution's policies regarding administrative practices. Thus, we
disagree with the comment that requiring specific documentation of
progress in the eligible major for National SMART Grant recipients
represents an intrusion by the Federal government into institutional
processes because we do not specifically mandate the process by which
an institution would document progress in the eligible major. We also
note that we do not require student financial aid administrators to act
as academic advisors and program experts by directly performing these
functions. Institutions must coordinate these functions to ensure that
the student financial aid administrators have access to the information
needed to determine student eligibility for these grants, and they are
expected to follow their own policies and procedures regarding where
and how they perform the functions necessary to ensure compliance with
this requirement, as well as other requirements, including protecting
private student information.
We have previously indicated that the term ``written'' encompasses
electronic documentation. Thus, electronic documentation would fulfill
the requirement that an eligible major be documented.
Finally, we agree with the commenters that the use of the phrase
``at least annually'' in the context of documenting progress in an
eligible major under Sec. 691.15(e)(1), (2), and (3), is ambiguous.
Because the course enrollment requirements for the National SMART Grant
Program are implemented by payment period, and an institution is
required to determine a student's eligibility for a disbursement for
each payment period under Sec. 691.75, the phrase ``at least
annually'' is inconsistent with the requirement to use payment periods.
Changes: We have revised the proposed regulations by removing the
phrase ``at least annually'' from Sec. 691.15(e)(1), (2), and (3).
Determination of Eligible Majors (Sec. Sec. 691.2(d) and 691.17)
Comments: Commenters generally supported the proposed changes
reflected in Sec. Sec. 691.2(d) and 691.17 that provide a process by
which institutions of higher education can request that additional
majors be included on the Department's list of eligible majors for
National SMART Grants. One commenter suggested that requests for
designation of an additional eligible major should be made by the
institution's designated academic official to ensure that additional
eligible major requests do not come from a non-academic office. Several
commenters urged the Department to add Food Science, (CIP 01.1001),
Food Science and Technology, (CIP 01.1099), or both, as additional
eligible majors for the National SMART Grant Program. One commenter
asked that Nursing (CIP 51.1601) be added to list of eligible majors.
Finally, a commenter suggested that the list of languages critical to
the national security of the United States be revised to include
Spanish.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments supporting the process to
add majors to the Department's list of majors eligible for a National
SMART Grant. However, we do not agree that the Department should
designate which office at an institution should submit the request to
add a major to the list of eligible majors because the Department does
not regulate the policies of a postsecondary educational institution
regarding administrative practices.
The designated eligible major CIP codes for this program are not
addressed in the Department's regulations. A revised list of eligible
majors was published on September 24, 2007 in Dear Colleague Letter
GEN-07-06 for academic year 2007-2008; this list includes Food Science
as an eligible major. Nursing and Spanish were not included in the
revised list because they are not considered eligible majors under
section 401A(c)(3)(C)(i) of the HEA.
Changes: None.
Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study (Sec. Sec. 691.15 and
691.16)
Successful Completion of a Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study
(Sec. 691.15)
Comments: One commenter supported the change in proposed Sec.
691.15 clarifying that successful completion of a rigorous secondary
school program of study means that, in addition to completing the
specific requirements of a rigorous secondary school program of study,
a student must receive a high school diploma or, for home-schooled
students, receive a high school diploma or certification of completion
of a secondary school education provided by the student's parent or
guardian.
Several commenters expressed concern that the requirements for
determining and documenting a student's successful completion of a
rigorous secondary school program of study were unnecessary. One
commenter noted that if a high school transcript contained all of the
information necessary to determine completion of a rigorous secondary
school program of study, there is no need to collect further
documentation. Several commenters believed it was sufficient to rely on
the FAFSA, which allows students to indicate that they have completed a
rigorous secondary school program and received a high school diploma or
certification of completion of a secondary school education. Another
commenter believed that unless there is conflicting information to
resolve, the transcript and the FAFSA self-certification should be
sufficient to establish a student's eligibility.
Another commenter requested clarification on whether a General
Educational Development (GED) certificate was the equivalent of a
certification of completion of a secondary school education. The
[[Page 61260]]
commenter requested guidance on whether a student who completed seven
semesters of high school, including the requirements for completing a
rigorous secondary school program of study, then dropped out of high
school, but later completed a GED, is eligible for an ACG.
Finally, two commenters supported the overall changes to the
eligibility requirements affecting home-schooled students. One
commenter in particular believed the changes in the regulations on how
institutions must document successful completion of a rigorous
secondary school program of study for home-schooled students provided
reasonable guidance.
Discussion: Section 401A(c)(3)(A)(i) and (c)(3)(B)(i) of the HEA
requires a student to successfully complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study in order to be eligible for an ACG. We believe that
the regulations provide a necessary clarification of the meaning of
successful completion of a rigorous secondary school program of study.
We disagree with the commenters who stated that they could rely on
the student's indication on the FAFSA to document that a student
successfully completed a rigorous secondary school program. The
student's indication on the FAFSA is used to identify students who may
be eligible for an ACG; it does not document that the student actually
completed a rigorous secondary school program of study and received a
high school diploma or, for home-schooled students, received a high
school diploma or certification of completion of a secondary school
education provided by the student's parent or guardian. In addition,
some data suggest that a significant number of students are incorrectly
indicating that they have completed a rigorous secondary school program
of study.
We agree with the commenters that a student's transcript may serve
as the only documentation necessary to determine whether a student
successfully completed a rigorous secondary school program of study if
that transcript shows that the student completed one of the rigorous
programs identified under Sec. 691.16 and that the student obtained a
high school diploma or the certification of completion of a secondary
school education. In this case no further documentation, i.e., a high
school diploma, would be required. If the student's transcript does not
provide all of the necessary information to document that a student
both completed a rigorous secondary school program of study and
obtained a high school diploma or the certification of completion of a
secondary school education, however, we believe additional
documentation, such as a high school diploma, is necessary to ensure
that a student has met the eligibility requirements.
We believe it is appropriate to require that an institution look
only at those students who self-certify their ACG eligibility through a
FAFSA in determining which students at the institution are eligible for
an ACG. However, if an institution is aware, based on information in
its files, such as a high school transcript, that a student who did not
self-certify on a FAFSA may be eligible for an ACG, the institution is
encouraged, but not required, to determine if that student is eligible
to receive an ACG.
In accordance with Sec. 691.16(c)(3), GED programs do not fulfill
the requirements for completion of a rigorous secondary school program
of study. A student who completed seven semesters of high school,
including all of the academic requirements for a rigorous secondary
school program of study, then dropped out of high school but later
completed a GED, would be ineligible for an ACG because the student did
not successfully complete that rigorous secondary school program of
study.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 691.15 by adding a new paragraph
(b)(5) to provide that an institution must attempt to document the
successful completion of a rigorous secondary school program of study
in the case of any student who self-certifies on the FAFSA that the
student completed a rigorous secondary school program of study. Section
691.15(b)(5) further provides that if a student does not self-certify
the completion of a rigorous secondary school program of study,
notwithstanding 34 CFR 668.16(f), an institution is not required to
determine the student's eligibility for an ACG.
Recognition of a Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study (Sec.
691.16)
Comments: Commenters generally supported the proposal to allow SEAs
and LEAs to request recognition of rigorous secondary school programs
of study for school years beyond the immediate school year. A couple of
commenters expressed concern that no changes were proposed to increase
the rigor of the existing rigorous secondary school programs of study
options. Three commenters proposed changes or additions to the
secondary school programs of study already recognized as rigorous. To
strengthen program rigor, one commenter suggested increasing the
mathematics requirement in Sec. 691.16(d)(2) to include three years of
mathematics, including geometry and algebra II, and an additional math
course at the level of algebra II or above for students who completed
algebra I in middle or junior high school. In addition, this commenter
believed that simply taking either two International Baccalaureate (IB)
Diploma Program courses or two Advanced Placement (AP) courses does not
constitute a rigorous curriculum. The commenter recommended that we
eliminate Sec. 691.16(d)(4) and (5) that include these two options as
recognized rigorous secondary school programs of study. Alternatively,
the commenter recommended that, although it would increase
institutional burden, we should deem the options in Sec. 691.16(d)(4)
and (5) as rigorous only for students from secondary schools that can
demonstrate that at least 75 percent of their students do not need
remedial coursework in college. Finally, this commenter was concerned
about the possibility that LEAs may establish rigorous programs that
are of a lower academic standard than the SEA has set for ACG
eligibility and suggested revising Sec. 691.16 to reflect that, while
an LEA can request recognition of a rigorous secondary school program
of study, the program of study must be comparable to or exceed the
rigor of a curriculum approved by the State and recognized by the Chief
State School Officer and the U.S. Secretary of Education.
Another commenter expressed concern that the preapproved rigorous
secondary school program of study options do not take into account the
qualitative rigor of courses or the alignment of secondary school
programs with college readiness and do not include dual enrollment or
early college programs in the list of preapproved rigorous secondary
school programs of study. The commenter recommended that to be
recognized as rigorous, secondary school programs should be required to
show both the alignment of the proposed rigorous secondary school
programs with college-readiness as well as a plan to further strengthen
that alignment over time. The commenter also recommended inclusion of
dual-enrollment and early college programs in the list of preapproved
rigorous secondary school programs of study. Finally, one commenter
suggested that any secondary school program for a student who completes
at least two higher-level QualityCore courses and receives a college
readiness score for at least two of those courses be included in the
list of preapproved rigorous secondary programs of study. This
commenter suggested that, alternatively, any secondary school program
of study
[[Page 61261]]
for a student who completes and passes at least two higher-level core
college preparatory courses with outcomes directly tied to college
readiness validated by a national examination program be included in
the list of preapproved rigorous secondary school programs of study.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support regarding the
proposal to allow SEAs and LEAs to request recognition of rigorous
secondary school programs of study for school years beyond the
immediate school year.
With respect to comments suggesting changes or additions to the
recognized secondary school programs of study, the issue was discussed
during the negotiated rulemaking process in connection with
strengthening the Secretary's coursework option in Sec. 691.16(d)(2).
Some non-Federal negotiators raised concerns about the uncertainty of
student access to classes if coursework requirements in mathematics,
science, social studies, and foreign language were increased. Because
the Secretary's coursework option is intended to be available to all
students, we have concluded that changes should not be made to the
Secretary's coursework option in Sec. 691.16(d)(2) at this time.
In relation to the IB and AP program options reflected in Sec.
691.16(d)(4) and (d)(5), the regulations accept as rigorous any
secondary school program of study for a student who completes at least
two IB courses and receives a score of ``4'' or higher on the
examinations for at least two of those courses. The Secretary also
recognizes as rigorous any secondary school program of study for a
student who completes at least two AP courses and receives a score of
``3'' or higher on the College Board's AP Program Exams for at least
two of those courses. Thus, it is not enough to merely take the IB or
AP coursework to constitute a rigorous secondary school program of
study. Nor is it sufficient to simply complete the IB or AP coursework
and exams without completing a secondary school program of study. A
student is required to complete a secondary school program of study,
which includes, as part of the program, the IB or AP coursework and
exam scores. We believe completion of a secondary school program that
includes IB or AP coursework and exam scores is a sufficient indicator
that the student has completed a rigorous secondary school program.
Thus, we do not agree with the commenter that we should eliminate the
option to complete a secondary school program that includes IB or AP
coursework and exam scores from the recognized list of rigorous
secondary school programs of study.
We also do not agree that the commenter's alternative option of
treating IB and AP coursework as rigorous only if the secondary school
can demonstrate that at least 75 percent of their students do not need
remedial work in college should be implemented. Tracking the remedial
coursework taken by graduates from each high school at different
postsecondary schools would be very difficult to do. We believe the
benefits from such a process are significantly outweighed by the burden
that would be imposed upon these entities, and thus, we do not support
this alternative option.
The HEA does not restrict the ability of an LEA to establish a
rigorous secondary school program of study, and we see no benefit to
adopting the suggestion to regulate the ability of LEAs to establish
rigorous secondary school programs of study.
We also do not agree with the suggestion that dual-enrollment and
early college programs should be included in the list of preapproved
rigorous secondary school programs of study. Both the HEA and these
regulations enable States to propose dual-enrollment and early college
programs for recognition as rigorous secondary school programs of
study. States are also able to propose program options that take into
account the qualitative rigor of courses or the alignment of secondary
school programs with college readiness. Further, States are able to
propose program options that include QualityCore coursework or programs
involving college preparatory coursework with outcomes tied to college
readiness validated by a national examination program. We believe that
States should retain the responsibility for proposing these types of
programs for recognition as rigorous secondary school programs of
study.
Changes: None.
Executive Order 12866
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
the regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to the
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by OMB.
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 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 terms of the Executive order, it has been
determined that this regulatory action will not have an annual effect
on the economy of more than $100 million. Therefore, this action is not
``economically significant'' and subject to OMB review under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. In accordance with the Executive
order, the Secretary has assessed the potential costs and benefits of
this regulatory action and has determined the benefits justify the
costs.
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
These final regulations address a range of issues affecting
students and schools participating in the ACG and National SMART Grant
Programs. Prior to the start of negotiated rulemaking, a list of
proposed regulatory changes was developed from advice and
recommendations by interested parties and organizations that were
submitted through testimony at public hearings and written comments
that were provided directly to the U.S. Department of Education in
Washington, DC. Staff within the Office of Postsecondary Education also
identified issues for discussion and negotiation.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
As part of the negotiated rulemaking process, the Department
considered a broad range of alternatives to the proposed regulations.
We discussed these alternatives in detail in the NPRM under the Reasons
sections that accompany the discussion of each proposed regulatory
provision. In assessing the budgetary impact of these alternatives, the
Department considered the effect of possible changes on student
eligibility for ACG and National SMART grant awards and on the size or
timing of student awards. In all cases, the alternatives considered,
which generally dealt with the clarification of existing definitions,
procedures, or processes to simplify program administration, did not
have a measurable effect on Federal costs. No comments or additional
[[Page 61262]]
information have been received since the publication of the NPRM to
cause the Department to reconsider this determination.
As noted above, while the Department cannot modify statutory
program requirements through regulations, in considering alternatives
we have tried, to the extent possible, to adopt those alternatives that
reduce administrative burden whenever possible within the limitations
imposed by statutory requirements. For example, in recognition of the
impact of administering the academic year progression requirements for
the ACG and National SMART Grant programs on institutions, the final
regulations require an institution to determine a student's academic
year progression during the student's attendance in all ACG and
National SMART Grant eligible programs only at the institution in which
the student is currently enrolled. We believe this approach will
simplify the academic year progression analysis for the institution,
especially when administering aid for transfer students.
Similarly, the final regulations include alternative methods for
determining weeks of instructional time. The provision of these three
alternative approaches will add flexibility and help alleviate
administrative burden on institutions, especially those with
traditional academic calendars, in calculating the weeks of
instructional time component of a student's academic year progression.
During negotiated rulemaking, non-Federal negotiators indicated
that additional clarity for requirements to determine transfer student
GPA for an ACG would reduce administrative burden on institutions.
Accordingly, the final regulations clarify that, for a second-year ACG,
GPA must be calculated at the end of the student's first academic year
(in contrast to the requirement under the National SMART Grant Program
that a 3.0 cumulative GPA be maintained for every payment period) and
that an institution only needs to track coursework it accepts into the
student's ACG-eligible program.
Benefits
Many of the final regulations reflected in this notice merely
clarify the current regulations, codify subregulatory guidance, or make
relatively minor changes intended to streamline program operations. The
Department believes the additional clarity and enhanced efficiency
resulting from these changes create benefits with little or no
countervailing costs. While many commenters raised concerns about
administrative burden related to the proposed regulations, the
Department believes that these concerns are generally a reflection of
the structure of the program as determined by statute rather than of
discretionary requirements included in the regulatory provisions.
Specific burden concerns are discussed in more detail elsewhere in this
preamble, primarily in the Analysis of Comments and Changes and
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 sections.
Benefits provided in these final regulations include the
elimination of the requirement that schools determine a student's
academic year progression based on the student's attendance in ACG or
National SMART Grant eligible programs at all institutions. Now the
student's academic year progression may be based solely on the ACG or
National SMART Grant eligible programs attended by the student at the
student's current institution. A second benefit of these final
regulations is that institutions of higher education have the ability
to choose from three alternative approaches for determining weeks of
instructional time in a student's academic year progression. A third
benefit of these regulations is that they clarify how institutions (a)
calculate a student's GPA for the purpose of determining eligibility
for an ACG or National SMART Grant, (b) document a student's intent to
major in an eligible subject, and (c) define successful completion of a
rigorous program of study. In addition, the final regulations allow
States to designate a rigorous program of study for more than one year,
and create a process for schools to suggest additions to the list of
majors in which students are eligible to receive a National SMART
Grant. Lastly, the final regulations allow a student who is beyond the
age of compulsory attendance and who enrolls as a regular student in an
ACG-eligible program while in high school to be eligible for an ACG if
the student meets the other eligibility requirements after graduating
from high school. None of these provisions were determined to have a
substantial economic impact; no information or comments have been
received since the publication of the NPRM that would cause the
Department to reconsider this determination.
Costs
The only provision included in the regulations that directly
affects student eligibility, and potentially could result in increased
Federal costs, involves the treatment of some students enrolled in
dual-credit or early college programs during high school. These
students, ineligible to receive an ACG under current regulations, will
be eligible under the final regulations provided that they had not been
admitted to an eligible program while in secondary school. There is no
data available on participation in these dual-credit programs, but
anecdotal evidence indicates they do not involve a large number of
students. While the expanded eligibility afforded by this provision
will provide a significant benefit to a small number of students, for
cost estimation purposes, the Department projects that other ACG
eligibility requirements related to academic rigor, full-time
attendance, and Pell Grant eligibility will reduce the already small
pool of potentially affected students such that no measurable costs
will be incurred.
Because institutions of higher education affected by these
regulations already participate in the ACG and National SMART Grant
Programs, these schools must have already established systems and
procedures to meet program eligibility requirements. The final
regulations reflect discrete changes in specific parameters associated
with the Department's existing guidance on these programs, rather than
entirely new requirements. Accordingly, entities wishing to continue to
participate in the programs have already absorbed most of the
administrative costs related to implementing these regulations.
Marginal costs over this baseline are primarily related to one-time
changes that, while possibly significant in some cases, are an
unavoidable cost of continued program participation.
Elsewhere in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, we identify
and explain burdens specifically associated with information collection
requirements. See the heading Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at http://www.Whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in Table 1 below, we
have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of the
expenditures associated with the provisions of these final regulations.
As shown in the table, the Department estimates that these regulations
will have no impact on Federal student aid payments.
[[Page 61263]]
Table 1.--Accounting Statement: Classification of Estimated Savings
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers............................. $0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these regulations will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
These regulations affect institutions of higher education, States,
State agencies, and individual students. The U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) Size Standards define these institutions as
``small entities'' if they are for-profit or nonprofit institutions
with total annual revenue below $5,000,000 or if they are institutions
controlled by governmental entities with populations below 50,000.
Individuals are also not defined as ``small entities'' under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
A significant percentage of the schools participating in the ACG
and National SMART Grant programs meet the definition of ``small
entities.'' While these schools fall within the SBA size guidelines,
these final regulations do not impose significant new costs on these
entities.
In the NPRM the Secretary invited comments from small institutions
as to whether they believe the proposed changes would have a
significant economic impact on them and, if so, requested evidence to
support that belief. Many commenters raised concerns about
administrative burden, particularly for small institutions, related to
the proposed regulations. As noted elsewhere in this notice, the
Department believes that these concerns reflect concerns with the
structure of the program, as determined by statute, rather than of
discretionary requirements included in the regulatory provisions.
Specific burden concerns are discussed in more detail elsewhere in this
preamble, primarily in the Analysis of Comments and Changes and
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 sections.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These regulations contain information collection requirements that
were reviewed in connection with the NPRM. The Department received
numerous comments on the burden associated with implementing the ACG
and National SMART Grant Programs. Several financial aid office
professionals submitted comments expressing the view that these
programs are the most challenging and burdensome aid programs to
deliver. The burden of these programs was associated with making a
determination that the student had completed a rigorous secondary
school program of study; academic year progression; and calculation of
grade point averages. Commenters also indicated that the administrative
software available to institutions of higher education does not support
the implementation of these programs. Another commenter indicated that
the program should be a campus-based program with institutions given
flexibility in making awards.
These comments relate to the basic structure of the ACG and
National SMART Grant Programs, as established in HEA, and cannot be
modified through regulatory action. To the extent possible, we have
tried to minimize the burden associated with these statutory
requirements. None of the comments received indicated that the
estimates of burden associated with implementing these programs under
the proposed regulations were incorrect.
In regard to other information collection requirements described in
the NPRM, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not require a
response to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
control number. We display the valid OMB control numbers assigned to
the collections of information in these final regulations at the end of
the affected sections of the regulations.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the
Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, we intend this document to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In the NPRM we requested comments on whether the proposed
regulations would require transmission of information that any other
agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
Based on the response to the NPRM and on our 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 may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
You may also view this document in PDF format at the following
site: www.ifap.ed.gov.
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: www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers: 84.375 Academic
Competitiveness Grants; 84.376 National SMART Grants)
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 691
Colleges and universities, Elementary and secondary education,
Grant programs--education, Student aid.
Dated: October 22, 2007.
Margaret Spellings,
Secretary of Education.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends part
691 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 691--ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) AND NATIONAL SCIENCE
AND MATHEMATICS ACCESS TO RETAIN TALENT GRANT (NATIONAL SMART
GRANT) PROGRAMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 691 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-1, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 691.2(d) is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, the
definition of ``Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP)'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 691.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP): A taxonomy of
[[Page 61264]]
instructional program classifications and descriptions developed by the
U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics
used to identify eligible majors for the National SMART Grant Program.
Further information on CIP can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002165.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 691.6 is amended by:
0
A. In paragraphs (a) and (b), removing the words ``undergraduate
education'' and adding, in their place, the words ``enrollment at an
institution''.
0
B. In paragraph (c), adding the words ``during the student's
undergraduate education in all eligible programs'' before the
punctuation ``.''.
0
C. Revising paragraph (d).
0
D. Adding new paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 691.6 Duration of student eligibility--undergraduate course of
study.
* * * * *
(d)(1)(i) Institutions must count credit or clock hours earned by a
student toward a student's completion of the credit or clock hours of
an academic year if the institution accepts those hours toward the
student's eligible program, including credit or clock hours that are
earned--
(A) From Advanced Placement (AP) programs, International
Baccalaureate (IB) programs, testing out, life experience, or similar
competency measures; or
(B) At an institution while not enrolled as a regular student in an
eligible program.
(ii) Institutions may not count credit or clock hours awarded for
coursework that is at less than the postsecondary level, such as
remedial coursework. These credit or clock hours may not be considered
in determining the credit or clock hours that a student has completed
in an academic year.
(2)(i) An institution may not assign any weeks of instructional
time to credit or clock hours accepted toward meeting the student's
eligible program if the student earned the credit or clock hours--
(A) From Advanced Placement (AP) programs, International
Baccalaureate (IB) programs, testing out, life experience, or similar
competency measures;
(B) At a postsecondary institution while not enrolled as a regular
student in an eligible program except as provided in paragraph
(d)(2)(ii) of this section; or
(C) For coursework that is not at the postsecondary level, such as
remedial coursework.
(ii) An institution must assign weeks of instructional time to
determining National SMART Grant eligibility for periods in which a
student was enrolled in an ACG eligible program prior to declaring, or
certifying his or her intent to declare, an eligible major.
(3)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section,
for a transfer student, an institution determining the academic years
completed by the student must count--
(A) The number of credit or clock hours earned by the student at
prior institutions that comply with paragraph (d)(1) of this section,
and that the institution accepts on transfer into the student's
eligible program; and
(B) The weeks of instructional time, except as prohibited in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section, determined by multiplying the number
of credit or clock hours that the institution accepts on transfer by
the number of weeks of instructional time in the academic year and
dividing the product of the multiplication by the credit or clock hours
in the academic year.
(ii) For a student who transfers into an eligible program for which
an institution determines estimated weeks of instructional time under
paragraph (h) of this section, the institution must apply the credits
accepted on transfer into the student's eligible program when
determining the student's grade level in accordance with paragraphs
(d)(2) and (h) of this section.
(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, an
institution must determine a student's progression in the weeks of
instructional time of an academic year through an exact accounting of
those weeks of instructional time.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section, an
institution may use, on an eligible program-by-program basis, an
alternative method to determine the weeks of instructional time taken
by its students during an academic year under paragraphs (f), (g), and
(h) of this section if the institution--
(i) Determines payments for the student's eligible program under
Sec. 691.63(b) or (c);
(ii) Uses, for all students enrolled in the eligible program for
whom an exact accounting is not performed, the same alternative method
described in paragraph (f), (g), or (h) of this section to determine
the students' progression in the weeks of instructional time of an
academic year; and
(iii) Upon request from a student, performs an exact accounting of
the student's academic year progression for that student based on the
actual weeks of instructional time the student attended in all eligible
programs at the institution and on any qualifying credit or clock hours
accepted on transfer into the student's eligible program.
(3) An institution may not use an alternative method under
paragraphs (f), (g), or (h) of this section if it performs an exact
accounting for a student, including an accounting pursuant to paragraph
(e)(2)(iii) of this section. Once an institution initiates an exact
accounting for a student under this section, the institution must use
the determination for that student based on the exact accounting and
not the determination based on an alternative method.
(f)(1) For an eligible program for which the institution determines
payments under Sec. 691.63(b) or (c), an institution may determine a
student's completion of the weeks of instructional time in an academic
year under the procedures set forth in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of
this section.
(2) For an eligible student enrolled in an eligible program that
has a single summer term that provides at least 12 semester, trimester,
or quarter hours of coursework and for which payments are calculated
under Sec. 691.63(b), the student's term is considered to be--
(i) For an eligible program offered in semesters or trimesters,
one-half of an academic year in weeks of instructional time if payments
may be determined under Sec. 691.63(b)(3)(i), or one-third of an
academic year in weeks of instructional time if payments may be
determined under Sec. 691.63(b)(3)(ii); or
(ii) For an eligible program offered in quarters that has a single
summer term, one-third of an academic year in weeks of instructional
time if payments may be determined under Sec. 691.63(b)(3)(i), or one-
fourth of an academic year in weeks of instructional time if payments
may be determined under Sec. 691.63(b)(3)(ii).
(3) For an eligible student enrolled in an eligible program with a
single summer term that provides at least 12 semester, trimester, or
quarter hours of coursework for which the institution may determine
payments under Sec. 691.63(c), the student's term is considered to
be--
(i) For an eligible program offered in semesters or trimesters,
one-half of the weeks of instructional time in the fall through spring
terms if payments may be determined under Sec. 691.63(c)(4)(i), or
one-third of an academic year in weeks of instructional time if
payments may be determined under Sec. 691.63(c)(4)(ii); or
[[Page 61265]]
(ii) For an eligible program offered in quarters, one-third of the
weeks of instructional time in the fall through spring terms if
payments may be determined under Sec. 691.63(c)(4)(i), or one-fourth
of an academic year in weeks of instructional time if payments may be
determined under Sec. 691.63(c)(4)(ii).
(g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, an
institution with an eligible program for which the institution
determines payments under Sec. 691.63(b) or (c) may determine a
student's completion of the weeks of instructional time in an academic
year under the procedures set forth in paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(3) of
this section.
(2) For an eligible student enrolled in an eligible program for
which payments may be determined under Sec. 691.63(b), an institution
must determine the number of weeks a student is considered to have
completed in an academic year by multiplying the number of credit hours
a student has earned in an eligible program by the number of weeks of
instructional time in the academic year and dividing the product of the
multiplication by the credit or clock hours in the academic year.
(3) For an eligible student enrolled in an eligible program for
which payments may be determined under Sec. 691.63(c), an institution
must determine the number of weeks a student is considered to have
completed in an academic year by multiplying the number of credit hours
a student has earned in an eligible program by the number of weeks of
instructional time in the fall through spring terms and dividing the
product of the multiplication by the credit or clock hours in the
academic year.
(h)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, an
institution with an eligible program for which the institution
determines payments under Sec. 691.63(b) or (c) may determine a
student's completion of the weeks of instructional time in an academic
year under the procedures set forth in paragraph (h)(2) and (h)(3) of
this section.
(2) A student at a grade level can be assumed to have completed an
academic year for each of the prior grade levels if for each grade
level of a student's eligible program--
(i) A student has completed at least the minimum credit hours for
the prior academic years for that program in accordance with this
section; and
(ii) Most full-time students in the student's eligible program
complete the weeks of instructional time of an academic year during the
period of completing each grade level as determined in accordance with
paragraph (h)(3) of this section.
(3)(i) For purposes of an award year, in making a determination
under paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section, an institution must first
determine that at least two-thirds of the full-time, full-year students
complete at least the weeks of instructional time of an academic year
while completing each grade level during the three most recently
completed award years prior to the award year immediately preceding the
award year for which the determination is made.
(ii) For each of the ACG or National SMART Grant Programs, an
institution may make a determination under paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this
section on an eligible program basis or an institutional basis.
(iii) An institution that makes a determination under paragraph
(h)(3)(i) of this section on an institutional basis must use the
alternative method in paragraph (h) of this section for all students at
the institution for whom it does not perform an exact accounting of the
weeks of instructional time completed.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 691.15 is amended by:
0
A. Revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d).
0
B. Adding new paragraphs (e), (f), and (g).
0
C. Adding a parenthetical phrase at the end of the section.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 691.15 Eligibility to receive a grant.
* * * * *
(b) ACG Program. (1) A student is eligible to receive an ACG if the
student--
(i) Meets the eligibility requirements in paragraph (a) of this
section;
(ii) For the first academic year of his or her eligible program--
(A) Has received a high school diploma or, for a home-schooled
student, a high school diploma or the certification of completion of a
secondary school education by the cognizant authority;
(B) Has successfully completed after January 1, 2006, as determined
by the institution, a rigorous secondary school program of study
recognized by the Secretary under Sec. 691.16; and
(C) Has not previously been enrolled as a regular student in an
eligible program while--
(1) Enrolled in high school; and
(2) Being at or below the age of compulsory school attendance; and
(iii) For the second academic year of his or her eligible program--
(A) Has received a high school diploma or, for a home-schooled
student, a high school diploma or the certification of completion of a
secondary school education by the cognizant authority;
(B) Has successfully completed, after January 1, 2005, as
determined by the institution, a rigorous secondary school program of
study recognized by the Secretary under Sec. 691.16;
(C) Has successfully completed the first academic year of his or
her eligible program; and
(D) For the first academic year of his or her eligible program,
obtained a grade point average (GPA) of 3.0 or higher on a 4.0 scale,
or the numeric equivalent, consistent with other institutional measures
for academic and title IV, HEA program purposes.
(2)(i) An institution must document a student's successful
completion of a rigorous secondary school program of study under
paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(1)(ii)(B), (b)(1)(iii)(A) and
(b)(1)(iii)(B) of this section using--
(A) Documentation provided directly to the institution by the
cognizant authority; or
(B) Documentation from the cognizant authority provided by the
student.
(ii) If an institution has reason to believe that the documentation
provided by the student under paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section is
inaccurate or incomplete, the institution must confirm the student's
successful completion of a rigorous secondary school program of study
by using documentation provided directly to the institution by the
cognizant authority.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section--
(i) A cognizant authority includes, but is not limited to--
(A) An LEA;
(B) An SEA or other State agency;
(C) A public or private high school; or
(D) A testing organization such as the College Board or State
agency; or
(ii) A home-schooled student's parent or guardian is the cognizant
authority for purposes of providing the documentation required under
paragraph (b) of this section. This documentation must show that the
home-schooled student successfully completed a rigorous secondary
school program under Sec. 691.16(d)(2). This documentation may include
a transcript or the equivalent or a detailed course description listing
the secondary school courses completed by the student.
(4) For a student who transfers from an eligible program at one
institution to an eligible program at another institution, the
institution to which the student transfers may rely upon the
[[Page 61266]]
prior institution's determination that the student successfully
completed a rigorous secondary school program of study in accordance
with paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(1)(ii)(B), (b)(1)(iii)(A), and
(b)(1)(iii)(B) of this section based on documentation that the prior
institution may provide, or based on documentation of the receipt of an
ACG disbursement at the prior institution.
(5)(i) If a student self-certifies on an application under Sec.
691.12, or otherwise self-identifies to the institution, that he or she
completed a rigorous secondary school program of study recognized by
the Secretary under Sec. 691.16, an institution must attempt to
collect the documentation described under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(ii) Notwithstanding 34 CFR 668.16(f), an institution is not
required to determine the ACG eligibility of a student if the student
does not self-certify on his or her application, or otherwise self-
identify to the institution, the completion of a rigorous secondary
school program of study.
(c) National SMART Grant Program. A student is eligible to receive
a National SMART Grant for the third or fourth academic year of his or
her eligible program if the student--
(1) Meets the eligibility requirements in paragraph (a) of this
section;
(2)(i)(A) In accordance with the institution's academic
requirements, formally declares an eligible major; or
(B) Is at an institution where the academic requirements do not
allow a student to declare an eligible major in time to qualify for a
National SMART Grant on that basis and the student demonstrates his or
her intent to declare an eligible major in accordance with paragraph
(d) of this section; and
(ii) Enrolls in the courses necessary both to complete the degree
program and to fulfill the requirements of the eligible major as
determined and documented by the institution in accordance with
paragraph (e) of this section;
(3) Has a cumulative GPA through the most recently completed
payment period of 3.0 or higher on a 4.0 scale, or the numeric
equivalent measure, consistent with other institutional measures for
academic and title IV, HEA program purposes, in the student's eligible
program;
(4) For the third academic year, has successfully completed the
second academic year of his or her eligible program; and
(5) For the fourth academic year, has successfully completed the
third academic year of his or her eligible program.
(d) Intent to declare a major. (1) For a student whose
institution's academic policies do not allow the student to declare an
eligible major in time to qualify for a National SMART Grant
disbursement, the institution must obtain and keep on file a recent
self-certification of intent to declare an eligible major that is
signed by the student.
(2) The student described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section must
formally declare an eligible major when he or she is able to do so
under the institution's academic requirements.
(e) Documentation of progression in the major. The institution must
document a student's progress in taking the courses necessary to
complete the intended or declared major that establishes eligibility
for a National SMART Grant. Documentation of coursework progression in
the eligible program and major under paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this
section may include, but is not limited to:
(1) Written counselor or advisor tracking of coursework progress
toward a degree in the intended or declared eligible major.
(2) Written confirmation from an academic department within the
institution that the student is progressing in coursework leading to a
degree in the intended or declared eligible major. This confirmation
must be signed by a departmental representative for the intended
eligible major.
(3) Other written documentation of coursework that satisfies the
ongoing nature of monitoring student coursework progression in the
intended or declared eligible major.
(f) Transfer students. (1)(i) Under the ACG Program, if a student
transfers to an institution that accepts for enrollment at least the
credit or clock hours for one academic year but less than the credit or
clock hours for two academic years from all prior postsecondary
institutions attended by the student, the GPA to determine second-year
eligibility for an ACG is calculated using the grades from all
coursework accepted by the current institution into the student's
eligible program.
(ii) Under the ACG Program, if a student transfers to an
institution that accepts for enrollment less than the credit or clock
hours for one academic year from all prior postsecondary institutions
attended by the student, the GPA to determine second-year eligibility
for an ACG is calculated using the grades from--
(A) All coursework accepted from all prior postsecondary
institutions by the current institution into the student's eligible
program; and
(B) The coursework earned at the current institution through the
payment period in which the student completes the credit or clock hours
of the student's first academic year in an eligible program based on
the total of the credit or clock hours accepted on transfer and the
credit or clock hours earned at the current institution.
(2) Under the National SMART Grant Program, if a student transfers
from one institution to the current institution, the current
institution must determine that student's eligibility for a National
SMART Grant for the first payment period using either the method
described in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section or the method
described in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section, whichever method
coincides with the current institution's academic policy. For an
eligible student who transfers to an institution that--
(i) Does not incorporate grades from coursework that it accepts on
transfer into the student's GPA at the current institution, the current
institution, for the courses accepted in the eligible program upon
transfer--
(A) Must calculate the student's GPA for the first payment period
of enrollment using the grades earned by the student in the coursework
from any prior postsecondary institution that it accepts toward the
student's eligible program; and
(B) Must, for all subsequent payment periods, apply its academic
policy and not incorporate the grades from the coursework that it
accepts on transfer into the GPA at the current institution; or
(ii) Incorporates grades from the coursework that it accepts on
transfer into the student's GPA at the current institution, an
institution must use the grades assigned to the coursework accepted by
the current institution into the eligible program as the student's
cumulative GPA to determine eligibility for the first payment period of
enrollment and all subsequent payment periods in accordance with its
academic policy.
(g) Numeric equivalent. (1) If an otherwise eligible program
measures academic performance using an alternative to standard numeric
grading procedures, the institution must develop and apply an
equivalency policy with a numeric scale for purposes of establishing
ACG or National SMART Grant eligibility. That institution's equivalency
policy must be in writing and available to students upon request and
must include clear differentiations of student performance
[[Page 61267]]
to support a determination that a student has performed at a level
commensurate with at least a 3.0 GPA on a 4.0 scale in that program.
(2) A grading policy that includes only ``satisfactory/
unsatisfactory'', ``pass/fail'', or other similar nonnumeric
assessments qualifies as a numeric equivalent only if--
(i) The institution demonstrates that the ``pass'' or
``satisfactory'' standard has the numeric equivalent of at least a 3.0
GPA on a 4.0 scale awarded in that program, or that a student's
performance for tests and assignments yielded a numeric equivalent of a
3.0 GPA on a 4.0 scale; and
(ii) The institution's equivalency policy is consistent with any
other standards the institution may have developed for academic and
other title IV, HEA program purposes, such as graduate school
applications, scholarship eligibility, and insurance certifications, to
the extent such standards distinguish among various levels of a
student's academic performance.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 1845-0001 and 1845-0039)
0
5. Section 691.16 is amended by:
0
A. Revising paragraph (b).
0
B. In the introductory text of paragraph (c), removing the word
``identifying'' and adding, in its place, the word ``establishing''.
0
C. In paragraph (c)(2), removing the word ``successfully'' before the
punctuation ``;'' and adding the word ``successfully'' immediately
before the word ``pursue''.
0
D. In the introductory text of paragraph (d), removing the word
``identified'' and adding, in its place, the word ``established''.
0
E. In paragraph (d)(1), removing the words ``or 2005-2006 school year''
and adding, in their place, the words ``school year or later school
years''.
0
F. In the introductory text of paragraph (d)(2) adding the word
``successfully'' immediately after the word ``student''.
0
G. Adding a parenthetical phrase at the end of the section.
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 691.16 Recognition of a rigorous secondary school program of
study.
* * * * *
(b) For each award year, the Secretary establishes a deadline for
SEAs and LEAs to submit information about the secondary school program
or programs that the SEA or LEA establishes as a rigorous secondary
school program of study, and, in the case of an LEA, documentation that
the LEA is legally authorized by the State to establish a separate
secondary school program of study. An SEA and LEA, if applicable, may
submit information--
(1) For students graduating during the current school year; and
(2) For students graduating during one or more specified upcoming
school years.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1845-0078)
0
6. Section 691.17 is amended by redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (e), and adding new paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 691.17 Determination of eligible majors.
* * * * *
(c) Designation of eligible majors. For each award year, the
Secretary publishes a list of eligible majors identified by CIP code.
(d) Designation of an additional eligible major. For each award
year, the Secretary establishes a deadline for an institution to
request designation of an additional eligible major.
(1) Requests for designation of an additional eligible major must
include--
(i) The CIP code and program title of the additional major;
(ii) The reason or reasons the institution believes the additional
major should be considered an eligible program under this part; and
(iii) Documentation showing that the institution has actually
awarded or plans to award a bachelor's degree in the requested major.
(2) For each award year, the Secretary will confirm the final list
of eligible majors.
* * * * *
Sec. 691.75 [Amended]
0
7. Section 691.75 is amended by:
0
A. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the regulatory citation
``691.15(b)(1)(iii)(C)'' and adding, in its place, the regulatory
citation ``691.15(b)(1)(iii)(D)''.
0
B. In paragraph (c), removing the regulatory citation
``691.15(b)(1)(iii)(C)'' and adding, in its place, the regulatory
citation ``691.15(b)(1)(iii)(D)''.
0
C. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), removing the regulatory citation
``691.15(b)(1)(iii)(C)'' and adding, in its place, the regulatory
citation ``691.15(b)(1)(iii)(D)''.
[FR Doc. E7-21068 Filed 10-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P