Student Assistance General Provisions; Federal Pell Grant Program; Academic Competitiveness Grant Program; and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant Program, 64402-64419 [E6-18197]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64402-64419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18197]



[[Page 64401]]

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

Part IV





Department of Education





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



34 CFR Parts 668, 690, and 691



Student Assistance General Provisions; Federal Pell Grant Program; 
Academic Competitiveness Grant Program; and National Science and 
Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant Program; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 64402]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Parts 668, 690, and 691

RIN 1840-AC86


Student Assistance General Provisions; Federal Pell Grant 
Program; 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 is adopting as final, with changes, interim 
final regulations in: 34 CFR part 691 for the Academic Competitiveness 
Grant (ACG) and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain 
Talent Grant (National SMART Grant) programs; 34 CFR part 668 (Student 
Assistance General Provisions); and 34 CFR part 690 (Federal Pell Grant 
Program). These final regulations are needed to implement provisions of 
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended by the Higher 
Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (HERA), Pub. L. 109-171, enacted 
on February 8, 2006, 20 U.S.C. 1070a-1.
    These final regulations for the ACG and National SMART Grant 
programs specify the eligibility requirements for a student to apply 
for and receive an award under these programs for the 2007-2008 award 
year. For regulations that will take effect for the 2008-2009 award 
year and subsequent award years, the Secretary intends to conduct 
negotiated rulemaking, as required under section 492 of the HEA.

DATES: Effective Date: These final regulations are effective July 1, 
2007.
    Implementation Date: The Secretary has determined, in accordance 
with section 482(c)(2)(A) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1089(c)(2)(A)), that 
institutions of higher education (institutions), State educational 
agencies (SEAs), and local educational agencies (LEAs) that administer 
title IV, HEA programs may, at their discretion, choose to implement 
all of the provisions of these final regulations on or after November 
1, 2006, including for the 2006-2007 award year. For further 
information, see ``Implementation Date of These Regulations'' under the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacquelyn Butler, U.S. Department of 
Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 8053, Washington, DC 20006-8544. 
Telephone: (202) 502-7890. Sophia McArdle, U.S. Department of 
Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 8019, Washington, DC 20006-8544. 
Telephone: (202) 219-7078.
    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 contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 3, 2006, the Secretary published 
interim final regulations (71 FR 37990) implementing the ACG and 
National SMART Grant programs added to the HEA by the HERA. The interim 
final regulations were effective on August 2, 2006. At the time the 
interim final regulations were published, the Secretary requested 
public comment on whether changes to the regulations were warranted.
    The July 3, 2006, interim final regulations included a discussion 
of the major issues covered by the regulations. The following list 
summarizes those issues and identifies the pages of the preamble to the 
July 3, 2006, interim final regulations on which a discussion of those 
issues can be found:
    The Secretary repeated in the ACG and National SMART Grant 
regulations several definitions and sections from the Federal Pell 
Grant Program regulations (71 FR 37990-37991).
    The Secretary specified that only students who are United States 
citizens are eligible to receive ACG and National SMART Grants (71 FR 
37991).
    The Secretary detailed the requirements for institutions to follow 
when resolving overpayments to students under the ACG and National 
SMART Grant programs (71 FR 37991).
    The Secretary defined eligible major for purposes of the National 
SMART Grant Program (71 FR 37991).
    The Secretary defined eligible program for the ACG and National 
SMART Grant programs (71 FR 37991).
    The Secretary specified the duration of student eligibility for the 
ACG and National SMART Grant programs by academic year (71 FR 37991).
    The Secretary delineated the institutional participation 
requirements, including a requirement that an institution that 
participates in the Federal Pell Grant Program and offers an 
educational program that is an eligible program for the ACG or National 
SMART Grant programs, must participate in the ACG and National SMART 
Grant programs (71 FR 37992).
    The Secretary specified the circumstances under which 
correspondence courses may be applied toward a student's full-time 
enrollment status in a noncorrespondence study program (71 FR 37992).
    The Secretary delineated the requirements for a student to attend 
more than one institution and receive an ACG or National SMART Grant 
(71 FR 37992).
    The Secretary specified the procedures that a student must follow 
when applying for an ACG or National SMART Grant (71 FR 37992).
    The Secretary set forth the ACG and National SMART Grant general 
student eligibility requirements (71 FR 37992).
    The Secretary specified the application of an academic year to a 
student's eligibility for an ACG and National SMART Grant (71 FR 
37992).
    The Secretary provided the grade point average (GPA) requirements 
for receiving an ACG or National SMART Grant (71 FR 37993).
    The Secretary provided the circumstances under which a student is 
not eligible for an ACG in the student's first academic year of 
enrollment if the student previously enrolled in a program of 
undergraduate education (71 FR 37993-37994).
    The Secretary specified the institutional requirements for 
documenting a student's completion of a rigorous secondary school 
program of study (71 FR 37994-37995).
    The Secretary stated the student requirements for declaring an 
eligible major in order to be eligible for a National SMART Grant (71 
FR 37994).
    The Secretary provided guidelines for recognizing a rigorous 
secondary school program of study for ACG eligibility (71 FR 37994).
    The Secretary delineated how eligible majors will be determined and 
their duration for the National SMART Grant Program (71 FR 37995).
    The Secretary specified how the maximum ACG and National SMART 
Grants will be determined each year (71 FR 37995-37996).
    The Secretary stipulated how ACG and National SMART Grant funds are 
treated in relation to other aid received (71 FR 37996).
    The Secretary detailed how an institution calculates an ACG or 
National SMART Grant payment for a payment period (71 FR 37996).
    The Secretary specified how an institution calculates an ACG or 
National SMART Grant payment for a student who transfers from another 
institution (71 FR 37996).
    The Secretary detailed the requirements that govern an

[[Page 64403]]

institution's determination of a student's eligibility for a 
disbursement of an ACG or National SMART Grant, including provisions 
regarding changes in a student's GPA, payment prior to receipt of a 
GPA, payments for nonterm self-paced programs, and, for National SMART 
Grants, changes to a student's major (71 FR 37996-37997).
    The Secretary specified how often an institution may pay a student 
(71 FR 37997).
    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 regulations that an entity 
subject to the regulations may choose to implement earlier and the 
conditions under which the entity may implement the provisions early. 
The Secretary is using the authority granted to her under section 
482(c) to designate all of the regulations included in this document 
for early implementation, beginning with the 2006-2007 award year, at 
the discretion of each institution, SEA, and LEA.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    The regulations in this document were developed through the 
analysis of comments received on the interim final regulations 
published on July 3, 2006. The Secretary invited comments on the 
interim final regulations, and we received 80 comments.
    An analysis of the comments and of the changes in the regulations 
since publication of the interim final regulations follows. We group 
major issues according to subject, with appropriate sections of the 
regulations referenced in parentheses. Generally, we do not address 
technical and other minor changes.

General Comments

    Comments: One commenter was concerned that the ACG and National 
SMART Grant program requirements would intrude on the academic policies 
of institutions with regard to credit accrual, calculation of GPA, 
determinations of academic progress, the treatment of transferred 
credits, and academic year standing. The commenter believed that 
permitting institutions to follow current business processes and 
practices would be in accord with current delivery systems and be clear 
to students.
    Discussion: The Secretary has no intention of interfering with 
institutions' academic policies and administration. Many of the program 
requirements about which the commenter is concerned are required by the 
HEA. The program requirements in the regulations are necessary to 
deliver ACGs and National SMART Grants to students and do not mandate 
any changes in institutional academic policies or administration.
    Changes: None.

Section 691.2 Definitions

    Comments: Several commenters believed that the term Scheduled Award 
is inappropriately applied to the ACG and National SMART Grant 
programs. The commenters believed that the term is confusing because 
the term relates to award year eligibility for Federal Pell Grants, 
which are payable for part-time enrollment, but is being applied to 
academic year eligibility for ACGs and National SMART Grants, which are 
payable for full-time enrollment only. Some commenters acknowledged the 
Secretary's need for a term that could be applied if the grants were 
subject to ratable reduction, but suggested that the Secretary use a 
different term. Others believed that the term would introduce 
unnecessary complexity into the ratable reduction process.
    Discussion: The Secretary believes that it is prudent to keep the 
ACG and National SMART Grant programs as similar to the Federal Pell 
Grant Program as possible within the constraints of the law. The 
Secretary believes the term Scheduled Award is appropriately applied to 
all three programs, as it refers to the amount a full-time student can 
be awarded for a full academic year, as in the Federal Pell Grant 
Program. Also, the term is appropriate as funds are allocated by award 
year, and the Secretary establishes the maximum Scheduled Award for 
that award year. Because the programs require only full-time enrollment 
as an eligibility criterion, there will not be Payment and Disbursement 
Schedules published as there are for the Federal Pell Grant Program, 
but the concept of Scheduled Award does apply with regard to such 
issues as remaining eligibility for transfer students and ratable 
reductions.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters believed that it was unclear whether 
proprietary institutions could participate in the ACG and National 
SMART Grant programs.
    Discussion: Under the regulations, an otherwise eligible 
proprietary institution that offers an eligible program as defined in 
Sec.  691.2 may participate in the ACG and National SMART Grant 
programs. Section 691.2 specifies that these regulations use the 
definition of eligible institution in 34 CFR part 600. This definition 
includes institutions of higher education, as defined in Sec.  600.4; 
proprietary institutions, as defined in Sec.  600.5; and postsecondary 
vocational institutions, as defined in Sec.  600.6.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters believed that title IV-eligible 
certificate programs should be included in the definition of an 
eligible program. The commenters argued that, while the law provides 
that a student must be enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a two- or 
four-year degree granting institution to be eligible for an ACG, or in 
a four-year degree granting institution to be eligible for a National 
SMART Grant, it does not prohibit a student from receiving an ACG or 
National SMART Grant for attending a certificate program offered by 
such a degree-granting institution. Many commenters asserted that 
certificate programs are just as important, if not more important, than 
degree programs to the future economic growth of States and the nation, 
and the students just as deserving of these grants as those enrolled in 
degree programs. In addition, the commenters asserted that many 
certificate programs attract the same caliber of students as those 
enrolled in degree programs. Several commenters noted that many 
students who initially seek certificates subsequently transfer into 
degree programs. A few commenters suggested including in the definition 
of eligible program certificate programs that are fully transferable 
into baccalaureate degree programs and certificate programs that are 
fully acceptable for credit toward an associate's degree. One commenter 
believed that, if certificate programs were not considered eligible 
outright, then the definition of an eligible program should include 
one-year programs that are fully acceptable for credit toward an 
associate's degree. The commenter asserted that, as with a two-year 
program that is fully acceptable for credit toward a bachelor's degree, 
the end result is an acceptable two- or four-year degree. One commenter 
noted that the Department's position is counter to the longstanding 
policy permitting an institution to designate a program as eligible for 
all title IV programs.
    Several commenters supported including in the definition of an 
eligible program graduate degree programs that include at least three 
academic years of undergraduate education. One commenter asked the 
Secretary to clarify a student's eligibility for a National SMART Grant 
if the student's

[[Page 64404]]

status has changed to graduate student because he or she is in the 
fourth year of a graduate program that contains at least three 
undergraduate years. One commenter believed that the definition of an 
eligible program should not include a graduate degree program that 
includes at least three academic years of undergraduate education. The 
commenter noted that this interpretation appears broader than the 
requirements for Federal Pell Grant eligibility for programs that 
include a fifth year that counts toward a graduate degree program, 
primarily education certification. The commenter suggested that the 
regulations reference Sec.  668.8, which defines an eligible program 
for other title IV, HEA eligibility.
    Discussion: The Secretary has determined that because the HEA 
limits eligibility to a student enrolled or accepted for enrollment in 
a two- or four-year degree-granting institution, eligibility must be 
limited to two- or four-year degree programs, as defined in Sec.  
691.2. Therefore, certificate programs do not qualify as eligible 
programs for ACGs. However, a student in a two-academic-year program 
acceptable for full credit toward a bachelor's degree may qualify, 
provided he or she meets other eligibility criteria. Because only 
students attending four-year institutions are eligible for National 
SMART Grants and a student must be enrolled in the third and fourth 
academic years to be eligible, the Secretary believes that a student 
must be enrolled in at least a bachelor's degree program to be eligible 
for a National SMART Grant.
    Section 401A(c)(3)(C) of the HEA, in defining the term eligible 
student, refers to a student enrolled or accepted for enrollment in 
specific years of a program of undergraduate education. Although a 
graduate degree program that includes at least three years of 
undergraduate education may be an eligible program for ACG and National 
SMART Grant purposes, under section 401A(c) of the HEA, a student 
enrolled in such a program is eligible for an ACG or National SMART 
Grant only while the institution considers the student to be an 
undergraduate student in accordance with the definition of 
undergraduate student in Sec.  691.2. Once a student is considered to 
be a graduate student, the student is no longer eligible for a National 
SMART Grant.
    With respect to the definition of an eligible program, it is 
important to define eligibility for students enrolled in a program that 
leads directly to a graduate degree without first awarding a bachelor's 
degree. Students enrolled in these programs have a period of 
undergraduate work for which they should be eligible for ACG and 
National SMART Grant funds notwithstanding the fact that the programs 
are structured differently than the typical separate degree programs 
for undergraduate and graduate programs. For programs that start at the 
undergraduate level and lead directly to a graduate degree without 
defining when the student is considered an undergraduate and graduate 
student, the definition in Sec.  691.5 allows eligible students to 
receive the appropriate funds from these two grant programs.
    Changes: None.

Section 691.6 Duration of Student Eligibility--Undergraduate Course of 
Study

    Comments: Many commenters objected to the Department's decision to 
base the duration of eligibility on an academic year as defined for 
purposes of the title IV, HEA programs, as measured in weeks of 
instructional time and, for undergraduate programs, credit or clock 
hours. These commenters stated that using the title IV, HEA definition 
of academic year was administratively burdensome and unworkable. Some 
commenters found the definition of academic year in part 691 to be 
inconsistent with other uses of the term in administering title IV, HEA 
programs. One commenter believed that only the credit hour portion of 
the definition of academic year should be used. Commenters also were 
concerned that a student's title IV, HEA academic year may not match 
the student's grade level used in the other title IV, HEA programs such 
as the FFEL and Direct Loan programs. The commenters recommended that 
the Secretary rely on grade level progression as in the FFEL and Direct 
Loan programs to determine the first, second, third, or fourth year of 
a student's enrollment.
    Discussion: 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 as 
amended by the HERA and explicitly applies to all title IV, HEA 
programs. The definition provides that an academic year contains a 
minimum number of weeks of instructional time and a minimum number of 
credit or clock hours. The Secretary has no flexibility to deviate from 
this defined term.
    Contrary to the assertions of some commenters, the Secretary 
believes that the interpretation of the term academic year in the 
regulations is not inconsistent with other title IV uses of the term. 
For example, the HEA provisions governing loan limits provide greater 
flexibility in this regard than does section 401A for ACGs and National 
SMART Grants. Specifically, section 428(b)(1)(A) of the HEA sets loan 
limits based on whether the student has ``successfully completed'' a 
``year'' of a program of undergraduate education. The Secretary has 
interpreted the term ``successfully completed the first year of a 
program of undergraduate education'' in section 428 to relate to a 
student's grade level, as determined by the institution. The Secretary 
did not, in so doing, interpret the term academic year as referring to 
the borrower's year in college. Instead, the Secretary interpreted the 
entirely different phrase ``first year.'' The Secretary has no 
flexibility to interpret section 401A in a similar fashion, because, 
unlike section 428, section 401A specifically uses the statutorily 
defined term academic year. The Secretary cannot limit the definition 
to the credit hour provisions, as was suggested by the commenters, 
because the statutory definition of academic year requires a minimum 
number of weeks of instructional time, in addition to the completion of 
a minimum number of credit or clock hours.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters were concerned with the effect previous 
enrollment in eligible programs at other institutions and the amount of 
transfer credits accepted would have on a student's academic 
progression. One commenter questioned whether academic progression was 
based on attendance in each eligible program separately, or on the 
student's attendance in all eligible programs at any institution. 
Another commenter thought institutions should be allowed to count the 
credits that are being accepted for a transfer student in the same way 
credits are counted for other programs, rather than trying to monitor 
previous credits differently for ACGs and National SMART Grants.
    Discussion: For purposes of ACGs and National SMART Grants, a 
student's academic progression is not based on the student's enrollment 
in each eligible program separately, but rather is based on all 
eligible programs in which a student has enrolled over the course of 
the student's undergraduate education. An institution is responsible 
for determining whether any previous enrollment by a student as 
measured in

[[Page 64405]]

weeks of instructional time and hours affects the student's eligibility 
for an academic year. If the student previously received an ACG or 
National SMART Grant for an academic year, or a portion of an academic 
year, an institution must consider the student to have completed an 
eligible program through that academic year, or that portion of an 
academic year, in weeks of instructional time and hours, unless the 
institution has information to the contrary. For example, if an 
institution accepts a transfer student who has received a first-year 
ACG Scheduled Award, the institution must consider the student to have 
completed his or her first year of ACG eligibility regardless of the 
number of transfer credits the institution accepts. To the extent a 
determination does not conflict with information related to grants 
previously received, when determining the appropriate academic year for 
a transfer student, the institution may rely on the transfer credits 
accepted, along with the estimated number of weeks of instructional 
time completed in proportion to the academic year of the student's 
eligible program at the institution to which the student transferred.
    Changes: The Secretary has amended Sec.  691.6(a) and (b) to 
clarify that a student's academic year progression is based on 
attendance in all eligible programs in which the student has enrolled 
over the course of the student's undergraduate education.
    Comments: Several commenters were concerned with the treatment of 
Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) credits 
and transfer credits. One commenter sought clarification of the 
treatment of AP and IB credits in relation to the requirement that a 
student must successfully complete the hours of an academic year along 
with the weeks of instructional time to progress to the next academic 
year. Some commenters were concerned that including AP and IB credits, 
along with transfer credits earned while enrolled in high school, would 
discourage students from taking these courses in high school if they 
resulted in a student being denied eligibility for a grant.
    Discussion: AP or IB credits accepted toward a student's eligible 
program count toward the completion of the hours of an academic year. 
Because AP and IB credits are earned based on secondary school courses 
and subsequent tests, there are no weeks of instructional time in 
postsecondary education associated with these credits. A student must 
successfully complete both measures of an academic year to progress to 
the next academic year. A student who entered college with 24 semester 
hours of AP credits toward an eligible program may be starting to earn 
hours toward completing the second academic year but would still be in 
the first academic year because, for purposes of an ACG or National 
SMART Grant, no weeks of instructional time while enrolled in an 
eligible program would have elapsed. Similarly, a student who entered 
college with 24 semester hours earned as a nonregular student in an 
undergraduate program while enrolled in high school, or possibly after 
high school, would also be in the position of starting to earn the 
second academic year of credits but would still be in the first 
academic year, because, for purposes of an ACG or National SMART Grant, 
no weeks of instructional time while enrolled in an eligible program 
would have elapsed. As a result, students will not be discouraged from 
enrolling in AP or IB courses in high school or in college courses as a 
nonregular student while in high school because doing so would not 
affect their eligibility for an ACG or National SMART Grant.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that ``grade level'' be 
determined once at the beginning of each award year and that the 
student maintain that level of eligibility for the year as long as the 
student is full-time.
    Discussion: The Secretary does not agree that the regulations 
should be changed. Although a single annual determination may simplify 
the programs' administration, it would deny an otherwise eligible 
student an additional grant if the student progresses to another 
academic year during the award year and qualifies for another Scheduled 
Award.
    Changes: None.

Section 691.7 Institutional Participation

    Comments: Several commenters believed that the requirement that an 
institution participate in the ACG and National SMART Grant programs in 
order to continue its participation in the Federal Pell Grant Program 
is an infringement on institutional autonomy and is not supported by 
the statute. Commenters noted that even in the FFEL and Direct Loan 
programs--where, similar to the Federal Pell Grant, ACG, and National 
SMART Grant programs, one part of the law encompasses several 
programs--institutional choice of participation is allowed. Several 
commenters stated that it was their understanding that the longstanding 
policy for the title IV, HEA programs allows an institution to 
designate a particular educational program as eligible for all title IV 
programs or only for some title IV, HEA programs and recommended that 
the Secretary continue this policy. With so little lead time for 
implementation, the commenters had concerns about the impact of the 
mandatory participation on an institution's administrative capability.
    Several commenters objected to the exclusion of an administrative 
cost allowance for the ACG and National SMART Grant programs, 
particularly because of the administrative burden of the required rapid 
implementation. Some commenters believed that the Secretary was acting 
inconsistently by disallowing the administrative cost allowance for the 
ACG and National SMART Grant programs, as the Secretary apparently 
otherwise considers the Federal Pell Grant, ACG and National SMART 
Grant programs, all of which fall under subpart 1 of part A, to be 
conjoined, and section 489(a) of the HEA requires the Secretary to pay 
an administrative cost allowance ``equal to $5 for each student at that 
institution who receives assistance under subpart 1 of part A.''
    Discussion: The Secretary believes that requiring an institution to 
participate in the ACG and National SMART Grant programs in order to 
participate in the Federal Pell Grant Program when eligible programs 
are offered at the institution is consistent with the statute's 
requirement that the Secretary award grants to Pell-eligible students. 
The Secretary believes that Congress intended that financially needy 
students receive all of the grants to which they are entitled under the 
HEA. Requiring institutional participation, thus, assures that students 
otherwise eligible for ACGs and National SMART Grants receive their 
awards.
    The Secretary believes that the mandatory participation in the 
Federal Pell Grant, ACG, and National SMART Grant programs is 
distinguishable from the flexibility given to institutions to choose 
whether to participate in the FFEL or Direct Loan Programs because 
needy students may be eligible for both a Federal Pell Grant and an ACG 
or a National SMART Grant concurrently, while students may only obtain 
loans under either the FFEL program or Direct Loan program during a 
term.
    Under the HEA, an institution receives an administrative cost 
allowance for each student receiving a Federal Pell Grant. Because 
students receiving ACGs and National SMART Grants are receiving Federal 
Pell Grants,

[[Page 64406]]

the institution does not receive an additional administrative cost 
allowance.
    Changes: None.

Section 691.11 Payments From More Than One Institution

    Comments: Two commenters disagreed with the requirement that the 
same school disburse Federal Pell Grant funds and ACG and National 
SMART Grant funds when a student is attending more than one institution 
under a written agreement.
    Discussion: The Secretary believes that it is appropriate to 
require that the same institution that administers a student's ACG or 
SMART Grant award administer the student's Federal Pell Grant award, 
because the programs are related in many ways. Several requirements 
related to the administration of the Federal Pell Grant Program and the 
ACG and National SMART Grant programs necessitate that the same 
institution disburse funds from these programs.
    Requirements such as that a student receive a Federal Pell Grant 
disbursement in the same award year in which the student receives an 
ACG or National SMART Grant, the requirement that an institution pay 
only on the transaction that is the valid institutional student 
information record (ISIR) (and only the institution paying the Federal 
Pell Grant will know which ISIR is the valid one), and the requirements 
related to reporting of verification records for the Federal Pell Grant 
Program make this choice necessary. The Secretary is aware that there 
may be a few situations in which a student is attending more than one 
institution under a written agreement. However, based on these factors, 
in the very limited circumstances in which different institutions would 
choose to administer and disburse funds from different title IV, HEA 
programs, the regulations under this section appropriately mandate that 
the institution that chooses to disburse Federal Pell Grant Program 
funds must also disburse the ACG and National SMART Grant funds.
    Changes: None.

Section 691.12 Application

    Comments: Several commenters recommended that the 2007-2008 Free 
Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) should request the 
information for a student to self-identify that he or she has 
successfully completed a rigorous secondary school program of study as 
provided for in Sec.  691.12(b)(2).
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that this information should be 
included on the FAFSA to the extent practicable. The 2007--2008 
electronic FAFSA form (FAFSA on the Web) collects this information, and 
students are able to provide the necessary information as a part of the 
application. More than 90 percent of all students apply electronically 
using FAFSA on the Web or through their institutions. The small 
minority of applicants using a paper FAFSA currently receive 
notification by mail or, if an e-mail address is provided, an e-mail 
that the student may call a toll-free telephone number or go to a web 
site to provide the necessary information. The 2007-2008 FAFSA has 
already been approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, but we 
will consider future improvements to the paper FAFSA during the next 
clearance cycle.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Two commenters recommended that the regulations clarify 
that an institution has the authority to request additional application 
information, similar to the Secretary's authority.
    Discussion: Under section 483(a) of the HEA only the Secretary has 
the authority to require a student to provide information concerning 
the student's need and eligibility for the title IV, HEA programs, and 
the Secretary is required to collect the student's information on the 
FAFSA. Institutions may not use any additional application data 
collection beyond the FAFSA to determine a student's title IV 
eligibility. However, an institution does have the authority under 34 
CFR 668.16(f) and 668.54(a)(3) of the Student Assistance General 
Provisions to require a student to provide any information or 
documentation necessary to resolve any concerns regarding a student's 
eligibility or application information as well as the authority to 
require documentation directly from a cognizant authority regarding the 
completion of a rigorous secondary school program of study under Sec.  
691.15(b)(2)(ii). The Secretary does not believe that these authorities 
need to be repeated in Sec.  691.12.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended that all application 
requirements appear only in the Federal Pell Grant regulations to 
eliminate the possibility of conflicting language.
    Discussion: Section 691.12, while similar to the Federal Pell Grant 
Program regulations when possible, does include provisions specific 
only to the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. The Secretary 
believes that regulations specific to the ACG and National SMART Grant 
programs should not be included in the Federal Pell Grant Program 
regulations, as it may cause confusion.
    Changes: None.

Section 691.15 Eligibility To Receive a Grant

Citizenship
    Comments: Several commenters objected to the requirement that 
students must be U.S. citizens in order to qualify for an ACG or 
National SMART Grant. One commenter stated that preventing permanent 
residents from receiving a National SMART Grant excludes from 
consideration more than twenty percent of Federal Pell Grant recipients 
who are majoring in the National SMART Grant fields of study.
    Discussion: Section 401A(c)(1) of the HEA specifies that only U.S. 
citizens are eligible for ACG and National SMART Grants. The Secretary 
does not have the authority to change this requirement through 
regulations.
    Changes: None.
Federal Pell Grant Eligibility
    Comments: A number of commenters objected to the requirement that 
an eligible student must be receiving a Federal Pell Grant disbursement 
for the same payment period in which he or she will receive the ACG or 
National SMART Grant. They stated that the statute only requires that a 
student be eligible for a Federal Pell Grant, not receiving a Federal 
Pell Grant for the same payment period. These commenters believed that 
the Secretary exceeded her statutory authority and arbitrarily denied a 
Federal entitlement to otherwise eligible students. The commenters were 
especially concerned about eligibility for payment periods that cross 
award years, pointing out that there are various situations in which 
students who attend college year-round may have exhausted their Federal 
Pell Grant eligibility yet still have remaining eligibility for an ACG 
or National SMART Grant. For these Pell-eligible students who have 
already received a full scheduled Federal Pell Grant award, the receipt 
of an ACG or National SMART Grant may be of critical importance. In 
addition, some students attending low-cost institutions may have 
substantial outside scholarship assistance that reduces their need and 
resultant ACG or National SMART Grant during the regular fall through 
spring academic calendar, but may have unmet need during the summer 
term. Some commenters suggested that it would be more reasonable to 
define Federal Pell Grant eligibility for this purpose in terms of an 
expected family contribution (EFC) within the range for

[[Page 64407]]

a Federal Pell Grant award for the award year in which the payment 
period is placed.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters that students 
should not have to receive a Federal Pell Grant during the same payment 
period to be eligible for an ACG or National SMART Grant. Rather, 
students who would otherwise be eligible for an ACG or National SMART 
Grant award but have already exhausted their Federal Pell Grant 
eligibility for the award year should be eligible to receive an ACG or 
National SMART Grant award as long as they received a Federal Pell 
Grant in the same award year.
    Change: Section 691.15(a)(2) has been revised to require that a 
student receive a Federal Pell Grant in the same award year, rather 
than the same payment period, to be eligible for an ACG or National 
SMART Grant. The Secretary has made conforming changes in Sec. Sec.  
691.65(a)(2) and 691.80(a) to reflect this change in the ACG and 
National SMART Grant student eligibility requirements. In addition, the 
Secretary has also made conforming changes to Subpart E of the Student 
Assistance General Provisions on verification of student aid 
application information by amending 34 CFR 668.51, 668.52, 668.54, 
668.55, 668.58, 668.59, 668.60, and 668.61. These changes are necessary 
to clarify that these sections apply to the ACG and National SMART 
Grant programs to ensure the synchronous administration of these 
programs.
Full-Time Enrollment
    Comments: One commenter expressed concern that the ACG and National 
SMART Grant regulations do not serve nontraditional students. The 
commenter believed that assistance from these programs should be 
available to students who enroll less than full-time.
    Discussion: Section 401A(c) of the HEA requires that a student must 
be enrolled full-time in order to be eligible to receive assistance 
under the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. The Secretary does not 
have the authority to change this requirement through regulations.
    Changes: None.
Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study Eligibility
    Comments: One commenter asked whether a student who has completed 
his or her secondary school coursework in December but who graduated 
after January 1, 2005, or 2006, is eligible for an ACG. Another 
commenter was concerned that students who are not of traditional 
college age would not be eligible for an ACG.
    Discussion: The requirement that a student have successfully 
completed a rigorous secondary school program of study after January 1, 
2006, for a first-year student and after January 1, 2005, for a second-
year student in order to receive an ACG is in section 401A(c)(3) of the 
HEA. The Secretary interprets the statute as requiring a student to 
have graduated in order to complete a rigorous secondary school program 
of study. For example, if a student completed the coursework of a 
rigorous secondary school program in December 2005, but actually 
graduated from the program after January 1, 2006, the student is 
eligible to receive a first year ACG. Although in the early years of 
the ACG program eligible students will be of traditional college age, 
as time goes by, students who are not of traditional college age may 
establish eligibility provided they have completed a rigorous secondary 
school program of study after the dates provided in the statute.
    Changes: None.
Grade Point Average
    Comments: Several commenters claimed that how and when to compute a 
cumulative GPA is confusing. One commenter wanted clarification on 
whether GPA for the student's eligible program meant cumulative GPA, 
major GPA, or something else. This commenter suggested removing the 
reference to eligible program if the Secretary intended a cumulative 
GPA computation. Some commenters supported the Secretary's 
interpretation of the GPA calculation for National SMART Grant 
eligibility in Sec.  691.15(c)(3). One commenter pointed out that, for 
National SMART Grants, the Secretary did not follow the language from 
section 401A(c)(3)(C)(ii) of the HEA, which provides that GPA is 
determined in the coursework required for the major, but instead 
required GPA to be determined for the coursework required for a 
student's eligible program. The commenter supported the burden 
reduction in this case, but objected to the regulatory approach. 
Another commenter believed that the GPA for ACGs should be defined the 
same way it is for National SMART Grants. Yet another commenter 
indicated that, for National SMART Grants, institutions should have the 
flexibility to review academic major and GPA no more frequently than is 
required by institutions to monitor students under their Satisfactory 
Academic Progress (SAP) policy, so as to align these two academically 
related monitoring policies.
    Discussion: As discussed in the preamble to the interim final 
regulations, the Secretary believes that a student's GPA for purposes 
of eligibility for the ACG and National SMART Grant programs should be 
calculated using the same standards that are used to calculate GPA for 
other academic and title IV purposes at the institution. The Secretary 
does not believe scores on tests in AP, IB, or College Level 
Examination (CLEP) programs should be converted to grades for any 
purpose under the ACG or National SMART Grant programs. For National 
SMART Grants in particular, the Secretary believes that the student 
must meet the GPA requirement based on all courses required for the 
student's eligible program, not just those required for the eligible 
major. The Secretary believes this approach is appropriate because it 
minimizes institutional burden when determining whether a student meets 
the GPA requirement and is in accord with other title IV, HEA program 
requirements related to GPAs. GPA cannot be computed the same way for 
the ACG Program as it is for the National SMART Grant Program because 
section 401A(c)(3) of the HEA requires a student to meet the necessary 
GPA only at the end of the student's first academic year for an ACG, 
but throughout the student's third and fourth academic years for a 
National SMART Grant.
    The Secretary believes that the monitoring requirements for SAP 
would not be adequate to determine eligibility for an ACG or National 
SMART Grant based on cumulative GPA. Under Sec.  668.32(f), although a 
student may be making satisfactory progress according to the 
institution's published SAP standards under Sec.  668.16(e), and if 
applicable, under Sec.  668.34, these standards allow a student to 
maintain a GPA below the 3.0 (on a 4.0 scale) GPA required to be 
eligible for an ACG or National SMART Grant. In addition, Sec.  
668.16(e)(4) provides that an institution must determine whether a 
student is making satisfactory progress at the end of each increment, 
which must not exceed the lesser of one academic year or one-half the 
published length of the program. In contrast, section 401A(c)(3)(C)(ii) 
of the HEA requires that a student meet the GPA requirement throughout 
the student's third and fourth academic year. Review of a student's GPA 
under the standards set forth in Sec.  668.16(e) would not ensure that 
a student is meeting the requirements of the National SMART Grant 
Program.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 64408]]

Transfer Student GPA
    Comments: We received several comments related to the GPA of 
transfer students. One commenter supported the Secretary's 
interpretation for transfer GPA calculations. Another commenter asked 
for clarification on how to treat GPA in the case of transfer students 
who are admitted for summer and then take a 3-credit summer course. 
Three commenters requested an option to use the GPA earned at prior 
colleges as the indicator of sufficient academic performance for 
payment for the first term at the new college to determine eligibility 
for an ACG or National SMART Grant because, at many colleges, it would 
require a significant reengineering of the business process to 
calculate a GPA based solely on courses accepted toward the program. 
The commenters believed that cumulative GPA from other institutions 
should sufficiently demonstrate academic achievement. Another commenter 
questioned the fairness of the transfer hours GPA policy. The commenter 
was concerned that students who do poorly at the first institution 
could transfer to gain ACG or National SMART Grant eligibility, because 
only the hours accepted by the new institution would be considered and 
all poor grades excluded. The student who does poorly and stays at the 
first institution would not be eligible, but the student who transfers 
could be.
    Discussion: The interim final regulations explain that, in the case 
of a transfer student, for the first payment period, institutions must 
rely on the grades of the courses from the prior institution accepted 
toward the student's eligible program. Transfer credits that were 
awarded through programs such as AP, IB, or CLEP programs should not be 
converted to grades to determine a student's GPA for purposes of 
eligibility for an ACG or National SMART Grant in the student's initial 
payment period after transferring. Once a student has the grades for a 
payment period at the new institution for coursework taken toward the 
eligible program, the institution may use the GPA calculated from those 
grades only, unless there is an institutional policy that a student's 
GPA at the new institution include transfer grades. While the Secretary 
agrees that cumulative GPA from a prior institution does serve as an 
academic performance indicator, the purpose of calculating GPA based 
solely on coursework accepted toward the eligible program is to ensure 
student eligibility for the ACG or National SMART Grant programs. 
Because this GPA calculation is used solely to determine a student's 
eligibility under these programs for the initial payment period of 
enrollment, there is no intrusion into institutional grading policy by 
the Secretary. Finally, the Secretary believes that the transfer hours 
GPA requirement in Sec.  691.15(d) of the interim final regulations is 
an equitable means of establishing a transfer student's eligibility. 
Students who perform poorly overall will likely still transfer in a GPA 
that is below 3.0. Thus, these students would not be significantly more 
likely to receive a grant than a student who did poorly but stayed at 
the same institution.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter asked the Secretary to clarify whether an 
institution is required to follow its standards for academic and title 
IV, HEA program purposes to determine a transfer student's GPA once it 
has established eligibility using grades in coursework that the 
institution accepts for the student's first payment period. For 
example, if an institution normally does not use grades on transferred 
credit for SAP or other purposes, does the institution have the option 
of using such grades for ACG and National SMART Grant recipients only?
    Discussion: An institution's policies for the administration of the 
title IV, HEA programs generally must be the same for all title IV, HEA 
programs. An institution may not establish a SAP policy that treats 
grades on transferred credits one way for ACG and National SMART Grant 
recipients, but another way for recipients of other title IV aid.
    Changes: None.
Prior Enrollment in a Postsecondary Educational Program
    Comments: Several commenters believed that students who attended 
postsecondary programs while completing high school should be 
considered first-year students for ACG eligibility purposes. Two 
commenters noted that some colleges offer the opportunity for a high 
school student to earn an associate's degree while completing high 
school. One commenter stated that it was possible for some of these 
students to enroll in college programs that only accept some of the 
credits the student has earned while in high school and, given the 
institution's definition of an academic year, the student may qualify 
as a first-year student. The commenter believed that, if the 
institution was treating the student as a first-year student, the 
student should be eligible for a first-year ACG.
    One commenter asked the Secretary to clarify whether a student who 
attended a postsecondary institution as part of a State-recognized 
dual-enrollment program is considered to have been enrolled as a 
regular student for purposes of determining prior enrollment. A few 
commenters asked for clarification of the Secretary's policy on prior 
enrollment. One commenter requested clarification as to whether a 
student who earned an associate's degree at the same time as he or she 
earned a high school diploma would be eligible for a second-year ACG, 
provided the transfer credits were less than what would be required to 
establish the student as a junior. The commenter also wanted to know if 
the same student would be eligible for a first-year ACG if he or she 
did not earn the associate's degree, and the transfer credits were less 
than what would be required to establish the student as a sophomore.
    Several commenters believed these final regulations should reflect 
guidance from the Department that prior enrollment in an undergraduate 
program after completion of high school would not affect a student's 
first year eligibility for an ACG and asked the Secretary to specify an 
effective date for this guidance.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the regulations should be 
clarified to reflect that only enrollment as a regular student in an 
eligible program while in secondary school disqualifies a student from 
receiving a first-year ACG in the student's first academic year of 
postsecondary education. Under the Department's interpretation of 
section 401A(c)(3)(A), the term ``previously'' in the phrase 
``previously enrolled in a program of undergraduate education'' in 
section 401A(c)(3)(A)(ii) relates to completion of a rigorous secondary 
school program of study in section 401A(c)(3)(A)(i).
    A student is considered to have been previously enrolled in an 
eligible program if the student was admitted into that program as a 
regular student while still enrolled in a secondary school program of 
study. A regular student is a person who is enrolled or accepted for 
enrollment at a postsecondary educational institution for the purpose 
of obtaining a degree, certificate, or other recognized postsecondary 
educational credential offered by that institution. Therefore, a high 
school student who was enrolled in a dual-enrollment program with the 
purpose of obtaining an associate's degree is considered to have been 
enrolled as a regular student, whether the student actually earned the 
associate's degree or not. Thus, the student was previously enrolled in 
an eligible program of undergraduate education and is not eligible for 
a first-

[[Page 64409]]

year ACG. Such a student may be eligible for a second-year ACG if his 
or her transfer credits were less than what would be required to 
establish the student as enrolled for the student's third title IV, HEA 
academic year. However, if an otherwise eligible student took courses 
that were part of an associate's degree program, but was not enrolled 
for the purpose of obtaining the associate's degree (i.e., was not a 
regular student), the student would be eligible for a first-year ACG.
    Changes: Section 691.15(b)(1)(ii)(B) has been revised to clarify 
that a student is not eligible for a first-year ACG if the student was 
previously enrolled as a regular student in an eligible program while 
still enrolled in a secondary school program of study.
Documenting Completion of a Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study
    Comments: Many commenters expressed concern that the requirements 
for determining and documenting a student's completion of a rigorous 
secondary school program of study are too onerous. Several commenters 
asserted that it is unduly burdensome for institutions to determine by 
means of a postgraduation high school transcript whether a student has 
met the definition of a rigorous secondary school program of study 
under Sec.  691.16(d). Commenters noted that this requirement will be a 
substantial new undertaking for institutions and they will have to come 
up with the resources or processes to comply.
    Several commenters noted that many community colleges do not 
collect high school transcripts as part of their admissions process; 
instead, they use testing to determine readiness. Other commenters 
noted that the transcripts they are evaluating for ACGs reflect only 
six or seven semesters of high school coursework. These commenters were 
concerned that there would be a problem with the timing of admissions 
decisions and initial financial aid package offers, which occur in the 
winter or spring prior to enrollment in the fall, because there may be 
uncertainty about whether a student would complete a rigorous secondary 
school program of study. The commenters proposed several options to 
ameliorate the burden of documenting completion of a rigorous secondary 
school program of study. The commenters suggested adding an option for 
defining a rigorous secondary school program of study that could be 
applied at the midpoint of a student's final year in high school, 
noting that this option would provide greater assurance that the 
initial financial aid award package for the student would materialize 
for the student when the final high school transcripts are reviewed and 
also would provide some measure of administrative ease for colleges 
when evaluating the final secondary school transcripts. One commenter 
noted that, in the few cases when the student substantially deviates 
from the level of academic achievement on the partial transcript, 
institutions could withdraw the admissions offer. In addition, one 
commenter suggested adding an option to define a rigorous secondary 
school program of study as a total of 16 subject years of study within 
the five defined subject areas. The commenter noted that this 
definition would reflect a higher subject year count than the current 
minimum course requirements and a broader curriculum than the AP and IB 
option demonstrates by requiring certain scores in only two courses. 
The commenter believed that this alternative would be acceptable if 
coupled with confirmation of graduation and successful completion of 
senior year courses. Similarly, one commenter asked that an institution 
whose academic policy required the same coursework from all admitted 
students that the Secretary requires for rigorous secondary school 
programs of study under Sec.  691.16(d) be permitted to assume that an 
otherwise-eligible student had completed a rigorous secondary school 
program of study, without requiring the institution to retrieve and 
review every transcript.
    One commenter requested clarification as to whether there is a 
minimum score required for rigorous programs like AP and, if so, 
whether it is the minimum required by, for example, the institution or 
the State. Finally, one commenter asked for clarification as to whether 
it is necessary to have documentation such as for AP scores in the 
Financial Aid office or if maintaining documentation at the Admissions 
or Registrar's Office would be acceptable.
    Discussion: The Secretary believes the current regulations 
appropriately balance statutory requirements with institutional burdens 
raised by commenters. While the Secretary agrees that there is a 
concern with respect to the timing of the availability of complete high 
school transcripts and admissions and financial aid package offers for 
first-year ACGs, section 401A(c)(3)(A)(i) and (c)(3)(B)(i) of the HEA 
requires a student to complete, and graduate from, a rigorous secondary 
school program of study in order to be eligible for an ACG. The 
Secretary believes that a rigorous secondary school program of study 
continues through a student's fourth year of high school.
    Institutions do not always withdraw admissions offers when a 
student's final high school transcript differs significantly from the 
partial transcript. In the case of an ACG, the purpose of the 
transcript is to document the completion of a rigorous secondary school 
program of study. The Secretary does not regulate the admissions 
standards of postsecondary institutions. When a student substantially 
deviates from the level of academic achievement on the partial 
transcript, the Secretary cannot regulate to require institutions to 
withdraw their admissions offers. The Secretary's concern, for purposes 
of awarding an ACG, would be that the transcript documented the 
student's completion of a rigorous secondary school program of study.
    While institutions are responsible for maintaining documentation at 
the institution, no specific location is required. If an institution 
requires the same coursework that the Secretary requires for a rigorous 
secondary school program of study from an admitted student, and the 
financial aid office is certain that the transcript or equivalent 
document confirming completion of a rigorous secondary school program 
of study is kept at the admissions office or some other part of the 
institution, it could assume a student met the rigorous secondary 
school program of study criterion.
    Finally, it should be noted that the minimum scores for AP exams 
were published in Sec.  691.16(d)(5) of the interim final regulations.
    Changes: None.
Declaring an Eligible Major
    Comments: One commenter believed that the Federal Government should 
not insert itself into the process of determining when a student 
declares a major as this action usurps an institution's prerogative to 
establish its own academic requirements. Another commenter requested 
clarification on how to document intent to declare an eligible major 
and how to determine when a student is no longer displaying an intent 
to declare an eligible major. One commenter suggested that, when an 
institution's academic requirements do not allow a student to declare 
an eligible major in time to qualify for a National SMART Grant, the 
student should be allowed to meet the declaration of eligible major 
requirement by enrolling in the courses deemed by the institution to be 
consistent with fulfilling the requirements of an intended eligible 
major and declaring an intention to

[[Page 64410]]

complete a major in an eligible field of study.
    Discussion: The Secretary does not agree that the regulations 
intrude on an institution's prerogative to establish its own academic 
requirements. In addition, the Secretary believes that documentation of 
intent to declare an eligible major should be determined by 
institutional policy. The regulations permit a student to fulfill the 
requirement that he or she declare an eligible major by enrolling in 
the courses deemed by the institution to be consistent with fulfilling 
the requirements of an intended eligible major and declaring an 
intention to complete a major in an eligible field of study if that is 
the institutional policy.
    Changes: None.

Section 691.16 Recognition of a Rigorous Secondary School Program of 
Study

    Comments: A few commenters supported the multiple options for 
demonstrating completion of a rigorous secondary school program of 
study, while other commenters believed that additional secondary school 
programs of study should be recognized as rigorous. One commenter 
believed that the recognized State secondary school programs of study 
should be the single standard for a rigorous secondary school program 
of study, as it would greatly reduce the administrative burden for 
institutions. A few commenters believed that the minimum course 
requirements in Sec.  691.16(d)(2) are too strict and would unfairly 
eliminate from eligibility students who should be eligible for an ACG. 
Two commenters believed that some students who meet their admissions 
requirements but who do not or cannot take the required courses in high 
school should not be eliminated from eligibility. For example, one 
commenter noted that advanced students who reduce their high school 
classes, such as English, during their last year of high school to take 
college classes may not qualify, even though their secondary school 
programs of study were quite rigorous. Another commenter gave the 
example of a student who otherwise qualified as a student who had 
completed a rigorous secondary school program of study, but who 
attended a high school that did not offer physics.
    One commenter believed that the Secretary should ensure that all 
approved State programs use wording consistent with the minimum course 
requirements under Sec.  691.16(d)(2) to the extent possible so that 
institutions will know that differences are not just semantic. For 
example, the commenter questioned whether a particular State standard 
requiring three years of math (at the algebra I level or higher) is 
intended to be different from the Federal standard requiring three 
years of math (including algebra I and a higher level course such as 
algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and statistics). A few 
commenters were concerned with the lack of uniformity in secondary 
school course descriptions, noting that States often combine courses 
into one general course; such as combining algebra I and geometry into 
a math I course offered over two academic years. The commenters 
believed that it is unreasonable to expect an institution to be 
familiar with the graduation requirements for all school districts in 
order to determine whether a student's courses meet the definition of a 
rigorous secondary school program of study.
    One commenter believed that the rigorous secondary school programs 
of study established by States and recognized by the Secretary should 
not be revised annually as significant changes would create confusion 
for students and undue burden for institutions.
    Discussion: Section 401A(f) of the HEA requires the Secretary to 
recognize at least one rigorous secondary school program of study in 
each State. As there is no statutory requirement for States to submit 
programs for recognition, the Secretary believed it was necessary to 
develop additional options for completion of a rigorous secondary 
school program of study that would ensure that students in each State 
have the opportunity to qualify for an ACG. The Secretary believes that 
the breadth of the options provides the vast majority of students for 
whom this grant program was intended with sufficient means to 
demonstrate eligibility for an ACG. To the extent that these options do 
not provide sufficient means to demonstrate eligibility, the Secretary 
encourages individuals, high schools, and postsecondary institutions to 
work together with States so that States may submit additional or 
revised programs for recognition. As for an advanced student who 
reduces his or her high school classes to take college classes, the 
Secretary reminds commenters that completion of college courses that 
meet the minimum course requirements for a rigorous secondary school 
program of study count toward completion of a rigorous secondary school 
program of study if they are accepted toward the student's high school 
diploma.
    The Secretary understands the commenters' concerns with 
inconsistent wording in State programs and a lack of clarity of course 
descriptions. However, the Secretary does not believe