Academic Competitiveness Grant Program and National Science and Mathematics Access To Retain Talent Grant Program, 44050-44065 [E7-15306]
Download as PDF
44050
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
§ 771.130 Supplemental environmental
impact statements.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) A supplemental draft EIS may be
necessary for FTA major public
transportation capital investments if
there is a substantial change in the level
of detail on project impacts during
project planning and development.
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
15. Amend § 771.133 by revising the
last sentence to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
§ 771.133 Compliance with other
requirements.
34 CFR Part 691
* * * The Administration’s approval
of a NEPA document constitutes its
finding of compliance with the report
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 128.
16. Add § 771.139 to read as follows:
§ 771.139
Issued in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of
July, 2007.
James S. Simpson,
Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of
July, 2007.
J. Richard Capka,
Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration.
[FR Doc. 07–3781 Filed 8–6–07; 8:45 am]
Statute of Limitations.
Notices announcing decisions by the
Administration or by other Federal
agencies on a transportation project may
be published in the Federal Register
indicating that such decisions are final
within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l).
Claims arising under Federal law
seeking judicial review of any such
decisions are barred unless filed within
180 days after publication of the notice.
This 180-day time period does not
lengthen any shorter time period for
seeking judicial review that otherwise is
established by the Federal law under
which judicial review is allowed.5 This
provision does not create any right of
judicial review or place any limit on
filing a claim that a person has violated
the terms of a permit, license, or
approval.
[Docket ID ED–2007–OPE–0135]
RIN 1840–AC92
Academic Competitiveness Grant
Program and National Science and
Mathematics Access To Retain Talent
Grant Program
Office of Postsecondary
Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to
amend 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: We must receive your comments
on or before September 6, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept
comments by fax or by e-mail. Please
submit your comments only one time, in
order to ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies. In addition, please
include the Docket ID at the top of your
comments.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Under
‘‘Search Documents’’ go to ‘‘Optional
Step 2’’ and select ‘‘Department of
Education’’ from the ‘‘Federal
Department or Agency’’ drop-down
menu, then click ‘‘Submit.’’ In the
Docket ID column, select ED–2007–
OPE–0135 to add or view public
comments and to view supporting and
related materials available
electronically. Information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions
for submitting comments, accessing
documents, and viewing the docket after
the close of the comment period, is
available through the site’s ‘‘User Tips’’
link.
• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery,
or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver
your comments about these proposed
regulations, address them to Sophia
McArdle, U.S. Department of Education,
1990 K Street, NW., room 8019,
Washington, DC 20006–8544.
Privacy Note: The Department’s
policy for comments received from
members of the public (including those
comments submitted by mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery)
is to make these submissions available
for public viewing on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. All submissions
will be posted to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal without change,
including personal identifiers and
contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Topic
Contact person and information
General information and information related to recognition of rigorous
secondary school programs and eligible majors.
Information related to successful completion of a rigorous secondary
school program.
Information related to grade point average ..............................................
Sophia McArdle. Telephone: (202) 219–7078 or via the Internet: sophia.mcardle@ed.gov.
Jacquelyn Butler. Telephone: (202) 502–7890 or via the Internet: jacquelyn.butler@ed.gov.
Anthony Jones. Telephone: (202) 502–7652 or via the Internet: anthony.jones@ed.gov.
Fred Sellers. Telephone: (202) 502–7502 or via the Internet:
fred.sellers@ed.gov.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Information related to academic year progression and prior enrollment
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:
5 The FHWA published a detailed discussion of
DOT’s interpretation of 23 U.S.C. 139(l), together
with information applicable to FHWA projects
about implementation procedures for 23 U.S.C.
139(l), in Appendix E to the ‘‘SAFETEA–LU
Environmental Review Process: Final Guidance,’’
dated November 15, 2006. The implementation
procedures in Appendix E apply only to FHWA
projects. The section 6002 guidance, including
Appendix E, is available at https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov//, or in hardcopy by request.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Invitation to Comment
As outlined in the section of this
notice entitled ‘‘Negotiated
Rulemaking,’’ significant public
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
participation, through four public
hearings and three negotiated
rulemaking sessions, has occurred in
developing this NPRM. Therefore, in
accordance with the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act, the
Department invites you to submit
comments regarding these proposed
regulations within 30 days. To ensure
that your comments have maximum
effect in developing the final
regulations, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific section or sections of
the proposed regulations that each of
your comments addresses and to arrange
your comments in the same order as the
proposed regulations.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866
and its overall requirement of reducing
regulatory burden that might result from
these proposed regulations. Please let us
know of any further opportunities we
should take to reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient
administration of the program.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about these proposed regulations by
accessing Regulations.gov. You may also
inspect the comments, in person, in
room 8019, 1990 K Street, NW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time,
Monday through Friday of each week
except Federal holidays.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Assistance to Individuals With
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record
On request, we will supply an
appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for these proposed regulations. If
you want to schedule an appointment
for this type of aid, please contact the
first person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Negotiated Rulemaking
Section 492 of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), requires
the Secretary, before publishing any
proposed regulations for programs
authorized by Title IV of the HEA (Title
IV, HEA programs), to obtain public
involvement in the development of the
proposed regulations. After obtaining
advice and recommendations from
individuals and representatives of
groups involved in the Federal student
financial assistance programs, the
Secretary must subject the proposed
regulations for the Title IV, HEA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
programs to a negotiated rulemaking
process. The proposed regulations that
the Department publishes must conform
to final agreements resulting from that
process unless the Secretary reopens the
process or provides a written
explanation to the participants in that
process stating why the Secretary has
decided to depart from the agreements.
Further information on the negotiated
rulemaking process can be found at:
https://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/
hearulemaking/2007/nr.html.
On August 18, 2006, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register (71 FR 47756) announcing our
intent to establish up to four negotiated
rulemaking committees to prepare
proposed regulations. One committee
would focus on issues related to the
ACG and National SMART Grant
programs. A second committee would
address issues related to the Federal
student loan programs. A third
committee would address
programmatic, institutional eligibility,
and general provisions issues. Lastly, a
fourth committee would address
accreditation. The notice requested
nominations of individuals for
membership on the committees who
could represent the interests of key
stakeholder constituencies on each
committee. The four committees met to
develop proposed regulations over the
course of several months, beginning in
December 2006. This NPRM proposes
regulations relating to the ACG and
National SMART Grant programs that
were discussed by the first committee
mentioned in this paragraph (the ‘‘ACG
and National SMART Grant
Committee’’).
The Department developed a list of
proposed regulatory changes from
advice and recommendations submitted
by individuals and organizations in
testimony submitted to the Department
in a series of four public hearings held
on:
• September 19, 2006, at the
University of California-Berkeley in
Berkeley, California.
• October 5, 2006, at the Loyola
University in Chicago, Illinois.
• November 2, 2006, at the Royal
Pacific Hotel Conference Center in
Orlando, Florida.
• November 8, 2006, at the U.S.
Department of Education in
Washington, DC.
In addition, the Department accepted
written comments on possible
regulatory changes submitted directly to
the Department by interested parties
and organizations. All regional meetings
and a summary of all comments
received orally and in writing are posted
as background material in the docket
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44051
and can also be accessed at https://
www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/
hearulemaking/2007/hearings.html.
Staff within the Department also
identified issues for discussion and
negotiation.
The members of the ACG and
National SMART Grant Committee
were:
• Gabriel Pendas, United States
Students Association, and Justin
McMartin, Minnesota State Colleges and
Universities (alternate).
• George Chin, City University of
New York, and Catherine Simoneaux,
Loyola University New Orleans
(alternate).
• Thomas Babel, DeVry,
Incorporated, and Matthew Hamill,
National Association of College and
University Business Officers (alternate).
• Margaret Heisel, University of
California, and Katherine Haley Will,
Gettysburg College (alternate).
• Cecilia Cunningham, Middle
College National Consortium, and Tim
Martin, University of Arkansas
(alternate).
• Lee Carrillo, Central New Mexico
Community College, and Patricia
Hurley, Glendale Community College
(alternate).
• June Streckfus, Maryland Business
Roundtable for Education, and Denise
Hedrick, Educational Collaborative
(alternate).
• Stanley Jones, Indiana Commission
for Higher Education.
• Joan Wodiska, National Governors
Association, and Robin Gelinas, Texas
Education Agency (alternate).
• Mary Beth Kelly, Pennsylvania
Higher Education Assistance Agency.
• Linda France, Kentucky Department
of Education, and Wandra Polk, North
Carolina Department of Public
Instruction (alternate).
• Joe McTighe, Council for American
Private Education, and William Estrada,
Home School Legal Defense Association
(alternate).
• Elaine Copeland, Clinton Junior
College.
• Bill Lucia, Educational Testing
Service, and Nancy Segal, ACT
(alternate).
• Carney McCullough, U.S.
Department of Education.
During its meetings, the ACG and
National SMART Grant Committee
reviewed and discussed drafts of
proposed regulations. It did not reach
consensus on the proposed regulations
in this NPRM. More information on the
work of this committee can be found at:
https://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/
hearulemaking/2007/acg.html.
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
44052
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Significant Proposed Regulations
We discuss substantive issues by
subject matter. Generally, we do not
address proposed regulatory provisions
that are technical or otherwise minor in
effect.
Academic Year Progression (§ 691.6(a),
(b), and (c))
Statute: Section 401A(c)(3)(A), (B),
(C), and (d)(2) of the HEA requires that
a student’s eligibility for an ACG or
National SMART Grant be based on the
student’s progression in academic years
during the student’s enrollment in an
undergraduate program of study. For
purposes of any program under Title IV
of the HEA, which includes the ACG
and National SMART Grant programs,
section 481(a)(2) of the HEA defines an
academic year based on two minimum
measures—weeks of instructional time
and credit or clock hours. Under section
481(a)(2) of the HEA, an academic year
for an undergraduate program of study
must be at least: (1) 30 weeks of
instructional time for a course of study
that measures its program length in
credit hours, or 26 weeks of
instructional time for a course of study
that measures its program length in
clock hours; and (2) 24 semester credit
hours, 36 quarter credit hours, or 900
clock hours. Accordingly, a student may
be eligible for an ACG during the first
and second academic years of the
student’s undergraduate education and
for a National SMART Grant during the
third and fourth academic years of the
student’s undergraduate education.
Section 401A(d)(2)(B) makes clear that a
student may not receive more than two
ACGs and two National SMART Grants.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
General (§ 691.6(a), (b), and (c))
Current Regulations: Under current
§ 691.6(a), (b), and (c) an institution
must determine a student’s eligibility
for ACGs and National SMART Grants
by determining the student’s academic
year progression, taking into account the
student’s attendance in all ACG and
National SMART Grant eligible
programs at all institutions attended by
the student during the course of that
student’s undergraduate education.
Thus, under the current regulations, a
student’s academic year progression is
not based on the student’s enrollment in
each eligible program separately, but
rather is based on all eligible programs
at all institutions in which a student has
enrolled over the course of the student’s
undergraduate education. Under the
current regulations, an institution must
determine whether a student’s previous
enrollment, as measured in both weeks
of instructional time and credit or clock
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
hours, affects the student’s eligibility for
an ACG or National SMART Grant in an
academic year. For example, consider a
student who completes the weeks and
hours of an academic year over three
semesters at one institution while
enrolled in an ACG eligible program.
Although the student attended the
institution on a full-time basis for only
one semester and received only half of
the first-year ACG, under the current
regulations, because the student
completed the weeks and hours of an
academic year, the student is no longer
eligible as a first-year student at any
institution. If the student transferred to
another institution and that institution
accepted less than the credit hours of an
academic year for that student, for
purposes of determining ACG eligibility,
the student would be unable to receive
the second half of the first-year ACG
because the student is considered to
have completed the first academic year
in an ACG eligible program.
Proposed Regulations: We are
proposing to revise current § 691.6(a),
(b), and (c) to 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. Under the proposed
regulations, the student who completes
the weeks and hours of an academic
year over three semesters at one
institution while enrolled in an ACG
eligible program may be eligible to
receive the remaining portion of the
first-year ACG at another institution
upon transfer if the second institution
determines that the student has
remaining eligibility for a firstacademic-year Scheduled Award and
considers the student to be enrolled in
the first academic year of an ACG
eligible program because it accepted less
than an academic year in credit hours.
Reason: We are proposing these
changes because we believe that they
would reduce the administrative burden
for institutions implementing the ACG
and National SMART Grant programs.
During negotiated rulemaking, the
Committee discussed the issue of
academic year progression at length.
Many of the non-Federal negotiators
were concerned about the impact the
regulations would have on a student’s
eligibility and the resulting difficulties
for institutions administering the grant
programs. Specifically, many of the nonFederal negotiators asked the
Department to interpret the terms ‘‘first
academic year,’’ ‘‘second academic
year,’’ ‘‘third academic year,’’ and
‘‘fourth academic year’’ in section 401A
of the HEA as a student’s grade level
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(e.g., freshman, sophomore, junior and
senior years).
Given that section 481(a)(2) of the
HEA specifically describes the minimal
requirements for an ‘‘academic year’’ for
purposes of any Title IV, HEA program
and that the ACG and National SMART
Grant programs are Title IV, HEA
programs, the Department is unable to
interpret the term ‘‘academic year’’ in
any way that would be contrary to the
statutory requirements in section
481(a)(2) of the HEA. Many of the nonFederal negotiators disagreed with the
Department’s position and suggested
that the Department has taken a more
flexible approach when defining a
‘‘year’’ in other contexts. For example,
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. We have interpreted the term
‘‘successfully completed the first year of
a program of undergraduate education’’
in section 428 of the HEA to relate to a
student’s grade level, as determined by
the institution. We have the authority to
interpret the statutory language in this
way because Congress had not provided
us with a statutory definition of the term
‘‘first year.’’ In contrast, Congress clearly
defines the minimum requirements of
an ‘‘academic year’’ in section 481(a)(2)
of the HEA. Accordingly, we are unable
to interpret ‘‘academic year’’ as the
student’s grade level for purposes of the
ACG and National SMART Grant
programs because it would be contrary
to the HEA.
We appreciate the impact of
administering the academic year
progression requirements for the ACG
and National SMART Grant programs
on institutions and share the objective
of reducing the administrative burden of
the programs. We believe that the
proposed regulations, which 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,
would simplify the academic year
progression analysis for the institution,
especially when administering aid for
transfer students, as discussed in the
following section.
Transfer Student (§ 691.6(d))
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
modify § 691.6(d) to codify, with
changes, the guidance provided in the
preamble of the November 1, 2006 final
regulations (71 FR 64401, 64405).
Proposed § 691.6(d)(3) would provide
that when determining the appropriate
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
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. Under the proposed
regulations, the estimated number of
weeks of instructional time that are
counted 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. To determine how many
weeks of instructional time to count,
proposed § 691.6(d)(3)(ii) would require
that an institution multiply the number
of credit or clock hours that the
institution accepted on transfer, except
as prohibited under § 691.6(d)(2), by the
number of weeks of instructional time
in the academic year and divide the
product of the multiplication by the
credit or clock hours in the academic
year. For example, consider an
institution that accepts 12 semester
hours on transfer into a student’s
eligible program that has an academic
year of 24 semester hours and 30 weeks
of instructional time. The institution
would determine the estimated weeks of
instructional time associated with the
12 semester hours by multiplying 12
times 30, which would equal 360, and
dividing 360 by 24 and determine that
the student is considered to have
completed 15 weeks of instructional
time based on the 12 hours transferred.
Under these proposed regulations,
institutions may not include in this
estimate credit or clock hours that were
not earned in an ACG or National
SMART Grant eligible program.
Reason: We propose adding
§ 691.6(d)(3) because we believe this
change would facilitate the
implementation of proposed § 691.6(a),
(b), and (c) by clarifying how an
institution would determine the
academic year progression—both in
terms of credit and clock hours and
weeks of instructional time—of students
who transfer to the institution.
Alternative Methods for Determining
Weeks of Instructional Time (§ 691.6(e),
(f), (g), and (h))
Current Regulations: Section 691.6(d)
of the current regulations allows
programs with traditional academic
calendars (i.e., programs for which an
institution determines payments under
current § 691.63(b) and (c)) to treat
summer terms as the same length as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
other terms when counting weeks of
instructional time for purposes of
determining a student’s eligibility for an
ACG or National SMART Grant. For
these programs, ‘‘traditional academic
calendars’’ are calendars that consist of
two semesters or three quarters in the
fall through spring and have a summer
term with a minimum full-time
enrollment standard of 12 semester or
12 quarter hours.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
remove current § 691.6(d) because this
provision would be superseded by the
alternative methods of determining
weeks of instructional time included in
proposed § 691.6(f), (g) and (h).
For programs with traditional
academic calendars, proposed
§ 691.6(e)(2) would provide three
alternative methods for determining the
weeks of instructional time for a
student’s academic year progression.
These methods would allow institutions
with traditional academic calendar
programs, based on specified criteria
that assure general compliance with the
academic year requirements, to (a) count
weeks of instructional time based on the
number of terms the student has
attended, (b) attribute weeks of
instructional time to the credit hours
earned by the student, or (c) use the
student’s grade level as a basis for
determining weeks of instructional time
completed. Because these alternatives
would not apply to eligible programs
without traditional academic calendars,
an institution would always be required
to provide an exact determination of
student academic year progression for
these nontraditional programs.
Under the ‘‘terms-attended’’
alternative reflected in proposed
§ 691.6(f), an institution would
determine the weeks of instructional
time a student has attended at the
institution based on the number of
terms the student has attended. For each
term completed, a student in an eligible
program would be considered to have
completed the same portion of an
academic year (in weeks of instructional
time) as the portion of the academic
year used to calculate the student’s
payment for a payment period. For
example, consider an eligible program
with two semesters with 15 weeks of
instructional time in each term and a
summer term of 12 weeks of
instructional time that has a defined
academic year of 24 semester credit
hours and 30 weeks of instructional
time. A payment for a payment period
in this eligible program would be onehalf of a student’s Scheduled Award
under current § 691.63(b). Under
proposed § 691.6(f), a student in this
eligible program who has completed
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44053
four consecutive terms, including a
summer term, may be considered to
have completed 60 weeks of
instructional time without reference to
the number of credits earned in those
terms. The institution must, under
§ 691.6(a), determine both the number of
credit hours the student earned as well
as the weeks of instructional time
completed by the student in order to
determine the student’s academic year
progression. So, if the student in the
example in this paragraph completed
four terms with only six credits in each
term, that student would not have been
eligible for a first-year ACG because the
student was enrolled as a less-than-fulltime student. That student, therefore,
would be considered a second-year
student at the end of the fourth term
despite the fact that the student
completed the equivalent of two
academic years in weeks of instructional
time under the ‘‘terms-attended’’
alternative. This is because a student
must meet both the ‘‘weeks of
instructional time’’ and ‘‘credit or clock
hours’’ requirements to progress from
one academic year to the next. The
student in this example did not meet the
credit or clock hours requirement
necessary to progress to third-year
status. Therefore, regardless of the
number of weeks of instructional time
the student completed, he or she is not
considered a third-year student. Based
on both weeks of instructional time and
credit hours, the student is a secondyear student.
Under the ‘‘credits-earned’’
alternative reflected in proposed
§ 691.6(g), an institution would
determine the weeks of instructional
time that a student has attended based
on the credit hours the student actually
earned in his or her ACG or National
SMART Grant eligible program. The
weeks of instructional time attended
would be considered to be in the same
proportion to weeks of instructional
time in the academic year as the credit
hours that the student has earned are in
proportion to the credit hours in the
academic year. For example, consider
an eligible program with two semesters
with 16 weeks of instructional time in
each term and a summer term of 12
weeks of instructional time that has an
academic year of 30 semester credit
hours and 32 weeks of instructional
time. Under proposed § 691.6(g), a
student who earned 60 credit hours in
this eligible program would be
considered to have completed 64 weeks
of instructional time, while a student
who earned 45 credit hours in this
eligible program would be considered to
have completed 48 weeks of
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
44054
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
instructional time. The student who had
earned 60 credit hours would be
considered to have completed his or her
second academic year, while the student
who had earned 45 credit hours would
still be considered to be in his or her
second academic year.
To use the ‘‘grade-level’’ alternative
reflected in proposed § 691.6(h)(1), an
eligible program must qualify under
proposed § 691.6(h)(1)(ii) and (2)(i) by
establishing that at least two-thirds of
the full-time students in the program are
completing at least the weeks of
instructional time in the academic year
for each grade level completed. Thus,
under this alternative method, a student
who completes a grade level at the
institution is considered to have
completed the academic years through
that grade level in weeks of
instructional time as long as the student
has also earned at least the minimum
number of credit hours for the academic
year. For example, consider an eligible
program with two semesters with 15
weeks of instructional time in each term
and a summer term of 12 weeks of
instructional time that has an academic
year of 24 semester hours and 30 weeks
of instructional time. The institution
considers a student in this eligible
program to advance in grade level after
earning 30 semester hours. Thus, under
the ‘‘grade-level’’ alternative method, a
student who has earned 60 credit hours
would be classified as a junior in a
National SMART Grant eligible
program. As a junior, the student would
be considered to have completed the
weeks of instructional time of the first
and second academic years because the
student also would have met the credit
hour requirement at the institution by
earning 60 semester hours, which is
more than the minimum number of
credit hours required for two academic
years (in this example, the minimum
credit hours would be 48 semester
hours).
Under proposed § 691.6(d)(2), the
‘‘credits-earned’’ and ‘‘grade-level’’
alternative methods reflected in
proposed § 691.6(g) and (h),
respectively, 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, as discussed under the next
heading Limitations on Determining
Weeks of Instructional Time.
In addition, under proposed
§ 691.6(e)(2)(ii), an institution that
chooses to use one of the alternative
methods of determining weeks of
instructional time would need to do so
for all students enrolled in the eligible
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
program. Under proposed § 691.6(e)(3),
upon request from a student, an
institution must also provide an exact
determination of the academic
progression for that student. An exact
accounting of academic year progression
for a student would always preempt any
use of the three alternative methods for
determining the weeks of instructional
time that the student has attended. We
discuss the requirements of proposed
§ 691.6(e)(3) in more detail in the
Student Request to Determine Academic
Year Level section of this notice.
Reason: We propose the changes
reflected in § 691.6(f), (g) and (h)
because we believe that the proposed
alternative methods for determining
weeks of instructional time would help
alleviate the administrative burden on
institutions, especially those with
traditional academic calendars, to
calculate the weeks of instructional time
component of a student’s academic year
progression.
Limitations on Determining Weeks of
Instructional Time (§ 691.6(d)(2))
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: In proposed
§ 691.6(d)(2), we make clear 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. Under these proposed
regulations, an institution could not
consider these credits when
determining a student’s weeks of
instructional time under an exact
accounting. Moreover, an institution
would not be permitted to assign any
weeks of instructional time to these
credits when determining a transfer
student’s academic year progression, or
when determining any student’s
academic year progression under the
‘‘credits-earned’’ or ‘‘grade-level’’
alternate methods reflected in proposed
§ 691.6(g) and § 691.6(h), respectively.
Proposed § 691.6(d)(2)(ii) would provide
an exception that would require an
institution to assign weeks of
instructional time to determine National
SMART Grant eligibility for periods in
which a student was enrolled in an ACG
eligible program prior to declaring, or
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
certifying his or her intent to declare, an
eligible major.
Reason: Students earn the credits
described in proposed § 691.6(d)(2)(i)(A)
through (C) while not enrolled in an
ACG or National SMART Grant eligible
program, and, therefore, these credits do
not have weeks of instructional time in
an ACG or National SMART Grant
eligible program associated with them.
Proposed § 691.6(d)(2)(i) is intended to
ensure that an institution accurately
determines a student’s academic year
progression in his or her ACG or
National SMART Grant eligible
program. We believe that excluding the
credits described in proposed
§ 691.6(d)(2)(i)(A) through (C) from the
calculation of weeks of instructional
time is appropriate because it would
treat students consistently and would
preserve two full years of ACG
eligibility for many students who might
otherwise have such credits counted in
a way that could make them ineligible
for a first-year ACG. We also believe that
it is appropriate to consider weeks of
instructional time completed by a
student while enrolled in an ACG
eligible program in determining a
student’s academic year progression for
National SMART Grants.
Student Request To Determine
Academic Year Level (§ 691.6(e))
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: In proposed
§ 691.6(e)(2)(iii), we have added
language to clarify that a student can
request and receive an exact
determination of the student’s academic
year standing at an institution based on
his or her attendance in all ACG and
National SMART Grant eligible
programs at that institution and on any
qualifying credit hours accepted on
transfer into the student’s ACG or
National SMART Grant eligible
program. Proposed § 691.6(e)(3) also
would provide that if an institution
performs an exact accounting of a
student’s standing, it may not use any
of the alternative methods in proposed
§ 691.6(f), (g) and (h) for determining
that student’s academic year standing.
Reason: We believe that it is
appropriate to add proposed § 691.6(e)
to the regulations because we consider
an exact determination 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. We encourage
institutions to use an exact
determination whenever possible
because it is necessarily more accurate
than any of the estimates obtained
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
under the alternative methods reflected
in proposed § 691.6(f), (g) and (h).
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Grade Point Average (GPA) (§ 691.15)
Statute: Section 401A(c) of the HEA
establishes the general criteria for a
student’s eligibility for payment under
the ACG and National SMART Grant
Programs. Section 401A(c)(3)(B)(ii) of
the HEA requires a student to have
obtained a cumulative GPA of at least
3.0 (or the equivalent as determined
under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary) at the end of the student’s
first academic year in order to be
eligible for ACG funds during the
student’s second academic year of a
program of undergraduate education.
For a student to be eligible to receive a
National SMART Grant award for the
third and fourth academic years, section
401A(c)(3)(C)(ii) of the HEA requires a
student to have obtained a cumulative
GPA of at least 3.0 (or the equivalent as
determined under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary) in the
coursework required for the eligible
major.
Numeric Equivalent
(§ 691.15(b)(1)(iii)(D), 691.15(c)(3), and
691.15(g))
Current Regulations: Under current
§ 691.15(b)(1)(iii)(C), to receive secondyear ACG funds, a student must have
obtained a GPA of 3.0 or higher on a 4.0
scale, or the equivalent, for the first
academic year of the student’s
enrollment in an ACG eligible program.
Under current § 691.15(c)(3), to receive
a National SMART Grant, a student
must have obtained, through the most
recently completed payment period, a
cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher on a
4.0 scale, or the equivalent, in the
student’s National SMART Grant
eligible program.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to
revise § 691.15 by clarifying in proposed
§ 691.15(b)(1)(iii)(D) and (c)(3) that, for
purposes of eligibility for ACG and
National SMART Grants, institutions
that assess grade point averages on a
numeric scale other than a 4.0 scale
must ensure that the minimum GPA
requirement on that scale is the numeric
equivalent of a cumulative GPA of 3.0
or higher on a 4.0 scale. We also
propose to add a new § 691.15(g)
providing minimum standards for
determining numeric equivalencies for
purposes of the ACG and National
SMART Grant programs.
Reason: During negotiated
rulemaking, the non-Federal negotiators
requested that the Department clarify
the meaning of the words ‘‘or the
equivalent’’ in current
§ 691.15(b)(1)(iii)(C) and (c)(3). Some of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
the non-Federal negotiators asked
whether the ‘‘or the equivalent’’
language meant that an institution could
determine its own equivalency of a
grading scale or simply an equivalent
measure on a different numeric scale.
We believe Congress clearly intended
for the equivalency to relate to an
objective means of assessing a student’s
GPA and not to permit institutions to
use a subjective measure. The nonFederal negotiators discussed this topic
and, ultimately, agreed with the
Department’s interpretation of the HEA.
In accordance with proposed
§ 691.15(g), an institution that has one
or more academic programs that
measure academic performance using
alternatives to standard numeric grading
procedures would be required to
develop and apply an academically
defensible equivalency policy with a
numeric scale for purposes of
determining student eligibility under
the ACG and National SMART Grant
programs. That equivalency policy
would need to be in writing and
available to students upon request. The
policy would also need to include clear
differentiations of student performance
to support a determination that a
student has performed, in his or her
ACG or National SMART Grant
program, at a level commensurate with
at least a 3.0 GPA on a 4.0 scale.
Generally, a grading policy that includes
only ‘‘satisfactory/unsatisfactory’’,
‘‘pass/fail’’, or other similar nonnumeric
assessments would not be a numeric
equivalent under the proposed
regulations. However, such assessments
would be considered numeric
equivalents if the institution could
demonstrate that the ‘‘pass’’ or
‘‘satisfactory’’ standard has the numeric
equivalent of at least a 3.0 GPA on a 4.0
scale, or that a student’s performance for
tests and assignments in the ACG or
National SMART Grant program yielded
a numeric equivalent of a 3.0 GPA on
a 4.0 scale. Under proposed § 691.15(g),
the institution’s equivalency policies
would need to be consistent with any
other standards that 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.
Transfer GPA—ACG (§ 691.15(f)(1))
Current Regulations: In the case of a
transfer student who has completed the
first academic year of enrollment in an
ACG eligible program at the prior
institution, for the first payment period
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44055
of enrollment at the institution to which
the student transfers, current
§ 691.15(d)(1) provides that the
institution must calculate the student’s
GPA using the grades earned by the
student in the coursework from any
prior institution accepted toward the
student’s ACG eligible program,
regardless of the number of weeks
associated with the credit or clock hours
accepted for the student on transfer. In
instances when a student completes his
or her first academic year after
transferring, institutions have been able
to use their own policies on how
transfer credits are counted to determine
whether the grades for the transfer
credits are included in the GPA
calculated to determine the student’s
eligibility for another ACG award.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 691.15(f)(1)(i) would provide that, for
a student who transfers to an institution
that accepts at least the credit or clock
hours for an entire academic year, but
less than for two academic years, the
GPA to determine second-year
eligibility is calculated using the grades
from all coursework accepted by the
current institution into the student’s
eligible program. Under proposed
§ 691.15(f)(1)(ii), for a student who
transfers to an institution that accepts
less than the credit or clock hours for an
academic year from all prior
postsecondary institutions attended by
the student, the GPA to determine
second-year eligibility is calculated by
combining the grades from all
coursework accepted on transfer by the
current institution into the student’s
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 the student’s
first academic year in the eligible
program. In conjunction with the
proposed changes to § 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.
Reason: The changes in proposed
§ 691.15(f)(1) are being made in
response to requests from the nonFederal negotiators to clarify how to
determine the GPA for transfer students.
The non-Federal negotiators said that
the GPA calculations for the ACG and
National SMART Grant programs were
confusing because the programs have
different requirements. The non-Federal
negotiators also sought to reduce the
administrative burden on institutions
when determining transfer student GPA
for ACGs.
Proposed § 691.15(f)(1) would clarify
that, for a second-year ACG, the GPA
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
44056
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
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). The requirement
that the GPA for a transfer student be
determined based on the coursework
accepted into the ACG-eligible program
at the current institution, which is
reflected in proposed § 691.15(f)(1)(i),
would clarify that an institution only
needs to track the coursework it accepts
into the student’s ACG-eligible program.
Finally, under proposed
§ 691.15(f)(1)(ii), an institution could
combine grades from coursework earned
at prior institutions with grades from
coursework earned at the current
institution to calculate the GPA for the
first academic year in an ACG eligible
program for the purpose of establishing
eligibility for the second-year ACG in a
way that minimizes institutional
burden.
Transfer GPA—National SMART Grant
(§ 691.15(f)(2))
Current Regulations: Current
§ 691.15(c)(3) states that, in order to be
eligible to receive a National SMART
Grant for the third or fourth academic
year of the student’s eligible program,
the student must have a cumulative
GPA through the most-recently
completed payment period of at least
3.0 or higher on a 4.0 scale, or the
equivalent, consistent with other
institutional measures for academic and
Title IV, HEA program purposes, in the
student’s National SMART Grant
eligible program. For a transfer student,
current § 691.15(d) requires an
institution to calculate the student’s
GPA for the student’s first payment
period of enrollment using the grades
earned by the student in the coursework
from any prior institution that it accepts
towards the student’s National SMART
Grant eligible program if the student
would be otherwise eligible for a
National SMART Grant. However, under
current § 691.15(d)(2), if the institution
accepts no credits towards the student’s
eligible program, the institution must
consider the student to be ineligible for
National SMART Grant funds until the
student completes at least one payment
period in an eligible program with a
qualifying GPA. Under the current
regulatory framework, after the initial
payment period, an institution should
calculate a student’s GPA consistent
with its other measures for academic
and Title IV, HEA program purposes.
Proposed Regulations: Under
proposed § 691.15(f)(2), if a student
transfers from one institution to an
institution at which the student is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
eligible for a National SMART Grant,
the institution to which the student
transfers would be required to
determine that student’s eligibility for
the first payment period using one of
two methods, whichever method
coincides with the institution’s
academic policy.
Under the first method, which is
reflected in proposed
§ 691.15(f)(2)(i)(A), if an institution’s
academic policy does not incorporate
grades from coursework that it accepts
on transfer into the student’s GPA at
that institution, then it would be
required to 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 National
SMART Grant eligible program. That
GPA would be used only for the first
payment period of the student’s
program. The institution would then be
required to apply its academic policy for
subsequent payment periods and not
incorporate, into the student’s GPA, the
student’s grades from the coursework
the institution accepts on transfer.
Under the second method, which is
reflected in proposed § 691.15(f)(2)(i)(B),
if an institution’s academic policy
incorporates grades from coursework
that it accepts on transfer into the
student’s GPA at that institution, then
the grades assigned to the coursework
accepted by the institution into the
student’s National SMART Grant
eligible program would be used as the
student’s cumulative GPA to determine
eligibility for the first payment period of
enrollment and would be included in
the student’s cumulative GPA for all
subsequent payment periods in
accordance with the institution’s
academic policy.
Reason: During negotiated
rulemaking, the non-Federal negotiators
believed the current regulations
sufficiently and appropriately addressed
the GPA calculation for a transfer
student eligible for a National SMART
Grant, but they requested that the
proposed regulatory language clarify
how an institution should calculate a
GPA based on whether its academic
policy incorporated transfer grades into
the GPA at that institution. The
proposed regulations for calculating a
GPA for a transfer student who is
eligible for a National SMART Grant
would codify existing practice and the
non-Federal negotiators were
comfortable with taking this approach.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Prior Enrollment in a Postsecondary
Educational Program and Student
Eligibility (§ 691.15)
Statute: Section 401A(c)(3)(A)(ii) of
the HEA provides that, for a student to
be eligible for a first-year ACG, the
student must not have been previously
enrolled in a program of undergraduate
education.
Current Regulations: Current
§ 691.15(b)(1)(ii)(B) provides that a
student is eligible for a first-year ACG if
the student was not previously enrolled
as a regular student in an ACG eligible
program while enrolled in high school.
Under the current regulations, therefore,
a student is eligible for a first-year ACG
after graduating from high school even
if—
• While in high school, the student
enrolled in an ACG ineligible program,
e.g., a certificate program, or
postsecondary courses without being
admitted as a regular student; or
• After high school, the student was
enrolled in an ACG eligible program as
long as the student had not completed
his or her first academic year of
enrollment in the eligible program.
Under the current regulations, a
student enrolled in dual-credit or early
college programs may be eligible for an
ACG after completing secondary school
if the student is not admitted as a
regular student in an eligible program
while in secondary school.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 691.15(b)(1)(ii)(C)(2) would amend the
current regulations by extending ACG
eligibility to a postsecondary 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.
Reason: During discussions at
negotiated rulemaking, the non-Federal
negotiators noted current statutory and
regulatory restrictions on postsecondary
institutions that limit an eligible
institution from admitting most high
school students as regular students. The
non-Federal negotiators considered
potential problems under the current
regulations, especially in relation to
dual-credit and early college programs.
We agree with the concerns raised by
the non-Federal negotiators and believe
it is important to narrow this restriction
on ACG student eligibility resulting
from a student participating in dualcredit or early college programs while
enrolled in secondary school. Thus, we
propose to change current
§ 691.15(b)(1)(ii)(B) to ensure that a
student would not be disqualified for a
first-year ACG award if that student
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
enrolled in an ACG eligible program
while in high school, so long as the
student was above the age of
compulsory school attendance at the
time and never received Federal student
aid funds while in high school. Because
the student in this example could not
qualify for any Federal student aid
funds while enrolled in high school
under section 484(a)(1) of the HEA, the
student’s enrollment would not
disqualify the student for an ACG at a
later date. This proposed change would
conform with the institutional eligibility
requirement in 34 CFR 600.4, 600.5, and
600.6 that an institution may admit as
regular students only persons who have
a high school diploma or the equivalent,
or who are beyond the age of
compulsory school attendance.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Eligible Majors (§§ 691.15 and 691.17)
Statute: Section 401A(c)(3)(C)(i) of the
HEA provides that a student may
receive a National SMART Grant if the
student is pursuing a major in the
physical, life, or computer sciences;
mathematics; technology; or engineering
(as determined by the Secretary); or a
foreign language that the Secretary, in
consultation with the Director of
National Intelligence, determines to be
critical to the national security of the
United States.
Documenting Major (§ 691.15)
Current Regulations: Current
§ 691.15(c)(2) requires that, to be eligible
for a National SMART Grant, a student
must formally declare his or her eligible
major in accordance with the
institution’s academic requirements.
However, if under an institution’s
procedures, a student would not be able
to formally declare a major in time to
qualify for a National SMART Grant, the
student must demonstrate his or her
intent to declare an eligible major as
documented by the institution. Under
current § 691.15(c)(2), as soon as the
student is able to formally declare a
major, the student must do so in order
to remain eligible for a National SMART
Grant. In the case of a student who has
declared or intends to declare an
eligible major, the student must enroll
in the courses necessary to complete the
degree program and to fulfill the eligible
major requirements.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 691.15(d)(1) and 691.15(e) would
clarify how an institution must
document a student’s eligible major, and
progress in the eligible program and
major, by requiring the institution to
maintain the following documentation:
(a) Documentation of the declared major
or, in the case of a student’s intent to
declare a major, a written declaration of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
intent provided by the student that has
been received recently enough for the
institution to determine that it still
correctly reflects the student’s stated
intent; and (b) written documentation
showing that the student is completing
coursework at an appropriate pace in
the student’s declared eligible major or
the eligible major that the student
intends to declare.
Reason: During negotiated
rulemaking, the non-Federal negotiators
sought clarification on how institutions
should document a student’s intent to
declare a major to ensure appropriate
compliance. Specifically, the nonFederal negotiators asked the
Department to provide examples of how
institutions should document a
student’s intent to declare a major. The
changes reflected in proposed
§ 691.15(d)(1) and 691.15(e) would
clarify how institutions must document
a student’s declared major or intent to
declare a specific major and also how
institutions must confirm that the
student is taking the appropriate courses
for the student’s eligible program and
eligible major. We think that these
procedures are appropriate because they
would enable the Department to
monitor compliance with the statutory
requirement that, to be eligible for a
National SMART Grant, a student must
pursue an eligible major.
Determination of Eligible Majors
(§ 691.2(d) and § 691.17)
Current Regulations: Current
§ 691.17(a) provides that, for each award
year, the Secretary identifies eligible
majors in the physical, life, or computer
sciences; mathematics; technology;
engineering; and, after consulting with
the Director of National Intelligence,
critical foreign languages.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 691.17(d) would provide a process by
which institutions of higher education
could request that additional majors be
added to the Department’s list of eligible
majors for National SMART Grants.
Under proposed § 691.17(d), an
institution would identify a proposed
additional eligible major by its
Classification of Instructional Programs
(CIP) code developed by the National
Center for Education Statistics. For the
sake of clarity, we also have proposed
to add to current § 691.2(d) a definition
of the term CIP as it pertains to the
National SMART Grant Program.
Reason: The non-Federal negotiators
requested a mechanism by which
institutions of higher education could
ask the Department to consider adding
majors to its list of eligible majors. We
believe it is reasonable to incorporate a
process in the proposed regulations to
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44057
facilitate requests from institutions to
add additional majors in a consistent
manner, for the purpose of establishing
a student’s National SMART Grant
eligibility.
The CIP is a taxonomy of instructional
program classifications and descriptions
developed by the U.S. Department of
Education’s National Center for
Education Statistics. For purposes of the
National SMART Grant Program, the
CIP coding scheme is currently used to
identify eligible majors. As part of the
new process, reflected in proposed
§ 691.17(d), institutions would need to
identify additional majors by
referencing the name of the proposed
additional major and its CIP code. We
would continue the current process of
publishing the final list of eligible
majors for each award year on the
Federal Student Aid Information for
Financial Aid Professionals Web site.
Rigorous Secondary School Program of
Study (§§ 691.15 and 691.16)
Successful Completion of a Rigorous
Secondary School Program of Study
(§ 691.15)
Statute: Section 401A(c)(3)(A)(i) and
(B)(i) of the HEA requires that a student
must have successfully completed a
rigorous secondary school program of
study, after January 1, 2006 for first-year
students and after January 1, 2005 for
second-year students, in order to receive
an ACG.
Current Regulations: Under current
§ 691.15(b)(2)(i), an institution must
document a student’s completion of a
rigorous secondary school program of
study using documentation from the
appropriate cognizant authority
provided by that authority or by the
student.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 691.15(b)(1)(ii)(A) and
§ 691.15(b)(1)(iii)(A) would clarify that,
in order to successfully complete a
rigorous secondary school program of
study, a student must, in addition to
completing the rigorous program of
study, obtain a high school diploma or
for a home-schooled student, receive a
high school diploma or certification of
completion of a secondary school
education provided by the student’s
parent or guardian. Proposed
§ 691.15(b)(2)(i) would clarify that an
institution must document a student’s
successful completion of a rigorous
secondary school program of study
using documentation provided by the
student or cognizant authority.
Reason: The non-Federal negotiators
requested that the regulations clarify the
meaning of the term ‘‘successful’’ in the
context of completing a rigorous
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
44058
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
secondary school program of study.
Specifically, the non-Federal negotiators
asked that the proposed regulations
clarify that to ‘‘successfully’’ complete a
rigorous secondary school program of
study, a student must both (a) receive a
high school diploma or, for a homeschooled student, receive a high school
diploma or certification of completion
of a secondary school education
provided by the student’s parent or
guardian; and (b) successfully complete
a rigorous secondary school program of
study as recognized by the Secretary
under current § 691.16. We believe that
the proposed changes address the nonFederal negotiators’ concerns.
Under proposed § 691.16, in the case
of a rigorous secondary school program
of study established by a State
educational agency (SEA) or local
educational agency (LEA), the specific
requirements for successfully
completing a rigorous secondary school
program of study would be determined
by that SEA or LEA and may include,
for example, a qualitative measure such
as a minimum GPA, in addition to
receiving a high school diploma or, for
a home-schooled student, receiving a
high school diploma or certification of
completion of a secondary school
education provided by the student’s
parent or guardian.
The concept of ‘‘success’’ in
relationship to completing a rigorous
secondary school program of study for
ACG purposes is also addressed in
proposed § 691.16(d), which is
substantially the same as current
§ 691.16(d). First, the requirement for
successfully completing the set of
courses designated by the Secretary
under proposed § 691.16(d)(2) would be
that a student must receive credit for
those courses, in addition to receiving a
high school diploma or, for a homeschooled student, receiving a high
school diploma or certification of
completion of a secondary school
education provided by the student’s
parent or guardian. The proposed
regulations would not require that a
student meet a minimum qualitative
standard for the courses, such as
receiving a minimum GPA, as long as
the student received credit for those
courses. Moreover, the proposed
regulations would not include any
minimum qualitative measure for
successful completion of the
coursework associated with AP or IB
courses under current § 691.16(d)(4) and
(5) as long as the student completes the
AP or IB coursework and receives a
passing grade. Thus, nothing in these
proposed regulations would change
current § 691.16(d)(4) and (5), under
which a student is considered to have
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
successfully completed a rigorous
secondary school program of study by
completing and passing the required IB
or AP courses and scoring a 4 or higher
on the corresponding IB exams or a 3 or
higher on the corresponding AP exams,
and obtaining a high school diploma or,
for a home-schooled student, a high
school diploma or certification of
completion of a secondary school
education provided by the student’s
parent or guardian.
Recognition of a Rigorous Secondary
School Program of Study (§ 691.16)
Statute: Section 401A(f) of the HEA
requires the Secretary to recognize at
least one rigorous secondary school
program of study in each State for the
purpose of determining student
eligibility for an ACG. Section
401A(c)(3)(A)(i) and (B)(i) provides that
a rigorous secondary school program of
study is established by an SEA or LEA.
Current Regulations: Current § 691.16
provides that, for an award year, the
Secretary recognizes in each State at
least one rigorous secondary school
program of study established by an LEA
the State has authorized to establish a
separate secondary school program of
study or an SEA. The current
regulations also provide for the
Secretary to recognize additional
secondary school programs of study as
rigorous, in addition to any that may
subsequently be established by SEAs
and LEAs and recognized by the
Secretary. These additional programs
include certain advanced and honors
programs established by States and in
existence for the 2004–2005 or 2005–
2006 school year.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 691.16(b)(2) would allow SEAs and
LEAs to request recognition of rigorous
secondary school programs of study for
school years beyond the immediate next
school year. Proposed § 691.16(d)(1)
would include a new element providing
for the continued recognition of
advanced or honors secondary school
programs of study by the Secretary for
school years subsequent to the 2005–
2006 school year.
Reason: We believe that the proposed
regulations would provide an efficient
process for the Secretary to recognize
rigorous secondary school programs of
study for multiple years into the future.
This process would allow SEAs and
LEAs to provide students with
information about what constitutes a
rigorous secondary school program of
study now and in future years. We
believe that providing students with this
information would have several positive
outcomes. First, the information would
provide certainty for a student that his
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
or her secondary school program of
study will qualify as rigorous for that
student’s State and graduation year.
Second, having this information would
allow a student to perform long-range
planning of his or her secondary school
program of study to ensure that a
recognized rigorous secondary school
program of study is completed. Third,
SEAs and LEAs would be able to
perform long-term resource allocation
planning to ensure that the recognized
rigorous secondary school program of
study is actually available to students.
Executive Order 12866
1. 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 the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as an action likely to
result in a rule that may (1) have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more, or adversely affect a
sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local or
tribal governments or communities in a
material way (also referred to as an
‘‘economically significant’’ rule); (2)
create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impacts of
entitlement grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive
order, it has been determined that this
proposed regulatory action would 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 proposed regulations address a
range of issues affecting students and
institutions participating in the ACG
and National SMART Grant programs.
Prior to the start of negotiated
rulemaking, through a notice in the
Federal Register and four regional
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
hearings, the Department solicited
testimony and written comments from
interested parties to identify those areas
of the Title IV regulations that they felt
needed to be revised. Areas identified
during this process that are addressed
by these proposed regulations include:
• Difficulties experienced by
institutions in determining academic
year progression. The Department has
proposed changes to simplify
determination of academic year
progression, in general, and for transfer
students, in particular. The Department
also has proposed certain alternative
methods for determining weeks of
instructional time.
• Concerns regarding student GPA
calculation at an institution that uses a
numeric scale other than a 4.0 scale.
The Department has proposed changes
to clarify how to calculate GPA at an
institution that assesses GPA on a
numeric scale other than a 4.0 scale.
• Confusion in both the ACG and
National SMART Grant programs
regarding GPA calculation for transfer
students. The Department has proposed
changes to clarify the GPA calculation
for transfer students in each program.
• Concerns regarding a student’s prior
enrollment in a postsecondary
educational program and student
eligibility. The Department has
proposed extending eligibility to
students who enroll as regular students
in an ACG eligible program while in
high school and who are beyond the age
of compulsory school attendance.
• Confusion regarding the
documentation of a student’s declared
major or intent to declare a major, and
the student’s progress in the eligible
major. The Department has proposed
changes to clarify the documentation
requirements.
• Lack of a process by which
institutions of higher education can
request additional majors to be added to
the list of eligible majors under the
National SMART Grant program. The
Department has proposed a process by
which institutions can request
additional majors.
• Confusion regarding what
constitutes successful completion of a
rigorous secondary school program of
study. The Department has proposed
changes to clarify this requirement.
• Concerns regarding recognition of a
rigorous secondary school program of
study. The Department has proposed
permitting State educational agencies
and local educational agencies to
request recognition of rigorous
secondary school programs of study for
school years beyond the immediate next
school year.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
A broad range of alternatives to the
proposed regulations were considered
as part of the negotiated rulemaking
process. These alternatives are reviewed
in detail elsewhere in this preamble
under the Reasons sections
accompanying 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
Grants or 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.
Benefits
Many of the proposed regulations
merely clarify the current regulations,
codify subregulatory guidance, or make
relatively minor changes intended to
streamline program operations. In the
absence of data to the contrary, the
Department believes the additional
clarity and enhanced efficiency
resulting from the proposed changes
represent benefits with little or no
countervailing costs or additional
burden. This belief is supported by the
fact that the ACG and National SMART
Grant committee reached tentative
agreement in many areas, and, where it
failed to reach tentative agreement, the
failure generally did not reflect
objections to the imposition of
burdensome new or additional
requirements. Nonetheless, the
Department is interested in comments
on possible administrative burdens
related to the proposed regulations.
Benefits provided in these proposed
regulations include the elimination of
the requirement that institutions
determine a student’s academic year
progression based on the student’s
attendance in ACG or National SMART
Grant eligible programs at all
institutions, rather than at the
institution the student currently attends;
the ability for institutions of higher
education to use three alternative
approaches for determining weeks of
instructional time in a student’s
academic year progression; and
clarification of how institutions
determine a student’s GPA for the
purpose of determining eligibility for an
ACG or National SMART Grant,
document a student’s intent to major in
an eligible subject, and define
successful completion of a rigorous
secondary school program of study. In
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44059
addition, the proposed regulations
would allow States to designate a
rigorous secondary school program of
study for more than one year, and create
a process for institutions to suggest
additions to the list of majors in which
students are eligible to receive a
National SMART Grant. Lastly, the
proposed regulations would allow
students beyond the age of compulsory
education who enroll as a regular
student in an ACG eligible program
while in high school to be eligible for
an ACG if they meet the other eligibility
requirements after graduating from high
school. None of these provisions were
determined to have a substantial
economic impact.
Costs
The only provision included in the
regulations that directly affected student
eligibility and potentially could result
in increased Federal costs involves
extending eligibility to students who
enroll in an ACG-eligible program while
in high school and who are beyond the
age of compulsory school attendance.
These students, ineligible to receive an
ACG under current regulations, would
be eligible under the proposed
regulations. The Department believes
this provision will affect so few students
that it will not result in measurable
Federal costs.
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 in place to meet
program eligibility requirements. The
proposed regulations involve discrete
changes in specific parameters
associated with existing guidance 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 proposed
regulations. Marginal costs over this
baseline are primarily related to onetime system changes that, while
possibly significant in some cases, are
an unavoidable cost of continued
program participation. The Department
is particularly interested in comments
on possible administrative burdens
related to these proposed regulations.
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.
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
44060
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
Accounting statement
The Secretary certifies that these
proposed regulations would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
These proposed regulations would 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
TABLE 1.—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: with populations below 50,000. States,
CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED SAV- State agencies, and individuals are not
defined as ‘‘small entities’’ under the
INGS
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
[In millions]
A significant percentage of
institutions participating in the ACG
Category
Transfers
and National SMART Grant programs
meet the definition of ‘‘small entities’’
Annualized Monetized Transfers ........................................
$0 under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
While these institutions fall within the
SBA size guidelines, the proposed
2. Clarity of the Regulations
regulations would not impose
Executive Order 12866 and the
significant new costs on these entities.
Presidential memorandum on ‘‘Plain
The Secretary invites comments from
Language in Government Writing’’
small institutions as to whether they
require each agency to write regulations believe the proposed changes would
that are easy to understand.
have a significant economic impact on
them and, if so, requests evidence to
The Secretary invites comments on
how to make these proposed regulations support that belief.
easier to understand, including answers Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
to questions such as the following:
Sections 691.15 and 691.16 contain
• Are the requirements in the
information collection requirements. We
proposed regulations clearly stated?
also address the potential for burden in
• Do the proposed regulations contain proposed § 691.17. Under the
technical terms or other wording that
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
interferes with their clarity?
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department has
• Does the format of the proposed
submitted a copy of these sections to
regulations (grouping and order of
OMB for its review.
sections, use of headings, paragraphing,
Collection of Information: Academic
etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
Competitiveness Grant (ACG) Program
and National Science and Mathematics
• Would the proposed regulations be
easier to understand if we divided them Access to Retain Talent Grant (National
SMART Grant) Program, (Information
into more (but shorter) sections? (A
‘‘section’’ is preceded by the symbol ‘‘§’’ Collection 1845–0078: State Proposals
for Recognition of Rigorous Secondary
and a numbered heading; for example,
School Programs of Study).
§ 691.16 Recognition of a Rigorous
Secondary School Program of Study.)
Section 691.15—Eligibility To Receive a
• Could the description of the
Grant, Prior Enrollment in a
proposed regulations in the
Postsecondary Education Program, and
‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of Student Eligibility
this preamble be more helpful in
The proposed regulations would
making the proposed regulations easier
extend eligibility to a student who may
to understand? If so, how?
enroll as a regular student in an ACG
• What else could we do to make the
eligible program while in high school if
proposed regulations easier to
the student is beyond the age of
understand?
compulsory school attendance. This
To send any comments that concern
proposed change does not represent a
how the Department could make these
change in burden. The eligibility
proposed regulations easier to
determination process would simply
understand, see the instructions in the
include an additional category of
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
eligible students for the ACG Program.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at https://
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 proposed
regulations. As shown in the table, the
Department estimates that these
proposed regulations would have no
impact on Federal student aid
payments.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Documenting Major
The proposed regulations would
clarify how institutions may document
a student’s declaration of an eligible
major or intent to declare an eligible
major. This documentation is needed for
a student to qualify for a National
SMART Grant. The proposed changes
would not result in a change in burden
for the institution because an institution
is currently required to document a
student’s declaration of an eligible
major or intent to declare an eligible
major.
Transfer GPA—ACG
The proposed regulations would
provide clarification on how to calculate
the GPA to determine a transfer
student’s second-year ACG eligibility as
well as on the ACG requirement that
GPA be calculated at the end of the
student’s first academic year. This
proposed change would provide
additional clarity about the
determination of the transfer student’s
GPA from the grades of the coursework
accepted by the current institution and
therefore would not impose any
additional institutional burden.
Transfer GPA—National SMART Grant
The proposed regulations would
specify how an institution must
calculate a GPA for a transfer student
under the National SMART Grant
program based on whether the
institution’s academic policy
incorporated transfer grades into the
GPA at that institution. The proposed
changes would not result in a change in
burden for the institution because an
institution is currently required to
calculate a GPA for a transfer student.
Successful Completion of a Rigorous
Secondary School Program of Study
The proposed regulations would
clarify that, for a student to successfully
complete a rigorous secondary school
program of study, the student must
obtain a high school diploma, or for a
home-schooled student, receive a high
school diploma or a certification of
completion of a secondary school
education provided by the student’s
parent or guardian. The student also
must successfully complete a rigorous
secondary school program of study as
identified under § 691.16. The proposed
changes would not represent a change
in burden because the changes will only
clarify the term ‘‘successfully’’ and
clarify that a student must receive a
high school diploma or, in the case of
a home-schooled student, a high school
diploma or certification of completion
provided by the student’s parent or
guardian.
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Section 691.16 Recognition of a
Rigorous Secondary School Program of
Study
The proposed regulations would
allow SEAs and LEAs to request
recognition of rigorous secondary school
programs of study for school years
beyond the immediate next school year.
The proposed regulations also would
amend the provision regarding
advanced or honors secondary school
programs of study to provide for
continued recognition of these programs
by the Secretary for school years
subsequent to the 2005–2006 school
year. The proposed changes do not
increase burden because there is an
annual process for the recognition of a
rigorous secondary school program of
study currently in place. The proposed
changes simply permit submission by
the SEAs and LEAs, and recognition by
the Secretary, for multiple years rather
than a single year, and therefore do not
increase the burden.
Determination of Eligible Majors
While the proposed regulations in 34
CFR 691.17(d) provide a process by
which institutions of higher education
may request that additional majors be
added to the approved list of eligible
majors for the National SMART Grant
Program, we anticipate only one or two
requests per year, thus the anticipated
additional burden is below the
minimum threshold to be considered a
burden to the affected entity—
institutions of higher education.
If you want to comment on the
proposed information collection
requirements, please send your
comments to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room
10235, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC, 20503; Attention: Desk
Officer for U.S. Department of
Education. Send these comments by email to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or
by fax to (202) 395–6974. Commenters
need only submit comments via one
submission method. You may also send
a copy of these comments to the
Department contact named in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
We consider your comments on these
proposed collections of information in—
• Deciding whether the proposed
collections are necessary for the proper
performance of our functions, including
whether the information will have
practical use;
• Evaluating the accuracy of our
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collections, including the validity of our
methodology and assumptions;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness,
and clarity of the information we
collect; and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
• Minimizing the burden on those
who must respond. This includes
exploring the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collections of
information contained in these
proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document
in the Federal Register. Therefore, to
ensure that OMB gives your comments
full consideration, it is important that
OMB receives the comments within 30
days of publication. This does not affect
the deadline for your comments to us on
the proposed regulations.
Intergovernmental Review
These programs are subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of
the objectives of the Executive order is
to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and
review of proposed Federal financial
assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Assessment of Educational Impact
The Secretary particularly requests
comments on whether these proposed
regulations would require transmission
of information that any other agency or
authority of the United States gathers or
makes available.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well
as all other Department of Education
documents published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet
at the following site: https://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: https://
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: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44061
(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: August 2, 2007.
Margaret Spellings,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Secretary proposes to
amend 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
1. The authority citation for part 691
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a–1, unless
otherwise noted.
2. Section 691.2(d) is amended by
adding, in alphabetical order, the
definition of ‘‘Classification of
Instructional Programs (CIP)’’ to read as
follows:
§ 691.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
Classification of Instructional
Programs (CIP): A taxonomy of
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
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002165.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 691.6 is amended by:
A. In paragraphs (a) and (b), removing
the words ‘‘undergraduate education’’
and adding, in their place, the words
‘‘enrollment at an institution’’.
B. In paragraph (c), adding the words
‘‘during the student’s undergraduate
education in all eligible programs’’
before the punctuation ‘‘.’’.
C. Revising paragraph (d).
D. Adding new paragraphs (e), (f), (g),
and (h).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
44062
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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) For a transfer student, an
institution determining the academic
years completed by the student must
count—
(i) 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
(ii) 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.
(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(e)(2) of this section, an institution must
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
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) 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
§ 691.63(b) or (c);
(ii) Uses, for all students enrolled in
the eligible program, 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)(ii) 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 may determine
payments under § 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 § 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 § 691.63(b)(3)(i), or one-third of
an academic year in weeks of
instructional time if payments may be
determined under § 691.63(b)(3)(ii); or
(ii) For an eligible program offered in
quarters that has a single summer term,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
one-third of an academic year in weeks
of instructional time if payments may be
determined under § 691.63(b)(3)(i), or
one-fourth of an academic year in weeks
of instructional time if payments may be
determined under § 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
§ 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 § 691.63(c)(4)(i), or
one-third of an academic year in weeks
of instructional time if payments may be
determined under § 691.63(c)(4)(ii); or
(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 § 691.63(c)(4)(i), or
one-fourth of an academic year in weeks
of instructional time if payments may be
determined under § 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 may determine payments
under § 691.63(b) or 691.63(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 § 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 § 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.
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(h)(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section, 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)(2) of this section.
(2)(i) For purposes of an award year,
in making a determination under
paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section, an
institution must first determine that at
least two-thirds of the full-time, fullyear 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)(2)(i) of this section on an
eligible program basis or an institutional
basis.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Section 691.15 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraphs (b), (c), and
(d).
B. Adding new paragraphs (e), (f), and
(g).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 691.15
Eligibility to receive a grant.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(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 § 691.16; and
(C) Has not previously been enrolled
as a regular student in an eligible
program while—
(1) Enrolled in high school; and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
(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 § 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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44063
an eligible program at another
institution, the institution to which the
student transfers may rely upon the
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.
(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 selfcertification 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:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
44064
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(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 at least annually.
(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 at least annually.
(3) Other written documentation of
coursework that satisfies the ongoing
nature of monitoring student
coursework progression in the intended
or declared eligible major at least
annually.
(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)(i) Under the National SMART
Grant Program, if a student transfers
from one institution to the current
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
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)(A) of this
section or the method described in
paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of this section,
whichever method coincides with the
current institution’s academic policy.
For an eligible student who transfers to
an institution that—
(A) 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—
(1) 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
(2) 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
(B) 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.
(ii) If the institution accepts no credit
or clock hours toward the student’s
eligible program, the institution must
consider the student to be ineligible
until the student completes at least one
payment period in an eligible program
with a qualifying GPA.
(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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
*
*
*
*
*
5. Section 691.16 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (b).
B. In the introductory text of
paragraph (c), removing the word
‘‘identifying’’ and adding, in its place,
the word ‘‘establishing’’.
C. In paragraph (c)(2), removing the
word ‘‘successfully’’ before the
punctuation ‘‘;’’ and adding the word
‘‘successfully’’ immediately before the
word ‘‘pursue’’.
D. In the introductory text of
paragraph (d), removing the word
‘‘identified’’ and adding, in its place, the
word ‘‘established’’.
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’’.
F. In the introductory text of
paragraph (d)(2) adding the word
‘‘successfully’’ immediately after the
word ‘‘student’’.
The revision reads as follows:
§ 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.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
6. Section 691.17 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph
(e), and adding new paragraphs (c) and
(d) to read as follows:
§ 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.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 691.75
[Amended]
7. Section 691.75 is amended by:
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)’’.
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)’’.
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. E7–15306 Filed 8–6–07; 8:45 am]
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AV40
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Notice of Scoping
Meetings and Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement and
Socio-Economic Assessment for the
Proposed Amendment of the Rule
Establishing a Nonessential
Experimental Population of the Arizona
and New Mexico Population of the
Gray Wolf (‘‘Mexican Gray Wolf’’)
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking; notice of intent; and notice
of public scoping meetings.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service, us, or we),
will prepare a draft environmental
impact statement (EIS) and socioeconomic assessment, pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, as amended, in
conjunction with a proposed rule to
amend the 1998 final rule that
authorized the establishment of a
nonessential experimental population of
the ‘‘Mexican gray wolf’’ in Arizona and
New Mexico, under section 10(j) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We will hold 12 public
informational sessions and scoping
meetings.
Through this notice and the public
scoping meetings, we are seeking
comments or suggestions from the
public, concerned governmental
agencies, Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning the scope
of the EIS, pertinent issues we should
address, and alternatives that should be
analyzed.
DATES: Comments should be submitted
directly to the Service’s New Mexico
Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section) on or before
December 31, 2007 or at any of the 12
scoping meetings to be held in
November and December 2007. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the
locations and dates of these scoping
meetings.
Information, comments, or
questions related to preparation of the
draft EIS through the NEPA process
should be submitted to Brian Millsap,
State Administrator, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, New Mexico
Ecological Services Field Office, 2105
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44065
Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113.
Alternatively, information presented at
the 12 public scoping meetings can be
viewed on a ‘‘virtual public meeting’’
Web site at https://
www.mexicanwolfeis.org and comments
can be submitted from the same Web
site. Written comments may also be sent
by facsimile to (505) 346–2542 or by email to R2FWE_AL@fws.gov. For
directions on how to submit electronic
comments, see the ‘‘Public Comments
Solicited’’ section below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions regarding the scoping process
or development of a proposed rule
amending the 1998 NEP final rule
should be directed to John Morgart at
(505) 346–2525. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–
8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Listed Entity
The Mexican gray wolf was listed as
an endangered subspecies in 1976
(April 28, 1976; 41 FR 17736) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act).
In 1978, the Service listed the gray wolf
species in North America south of
Canada as endangered, except in
Minnesota where it was listed as
threatened, in 1978 (March 9, 1978; 43
FR 9607). The 1978 listing of the gray
wolf species as a whole, subsumed the
subspecies listing, however, the
preamble to the rule continued to
recognize the Mexican gray wolf as
valid biological subspecies for purposes
of research and conservation (43 FR
9607). After the 1978 listing of the gray
wolf, the 50 CFR 17.11(h) List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(List) did not explicitly refer to an entity
called the ‘‘Mexican gray wolf.’’ Due to
its previous status as a subspecies, the
Service has continued to refer to the
gray wolves in the southwestern United
States as the ‘‘Mexican gray wolf.’’ A
1998 final rule (January 12, 1998; 63 FR
1752) established a nonessential
experimental population (NEP) of the
Mexican gray wolf in Arizona and New
Mexico.
In 2007, we published a final rule
(February 8, 2007; 72 FR 6052)
designating the Western Great Lakes
Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of
the gray wolf and removing that DPS
from the List. On the same date, we also
published a proposed rule (72 FR 6105)
to designate the Northern Rocky
Mountain DPS of the gray wolf and
remove that DPS from the List as well.
The nonessential experimental
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 7, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44050-44065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15306]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 691
[Docket ID ED-2007-OPE-0135]
RIN 1840-AC92
Academic Competitiveness Grant Program and National Science and
Mathematics Access To Retain Talent Grant Program
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend 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: We must receive your comments on or before September 6, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only
one time, in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies.
In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Under ``Search Documents'' go to ``Optional Step
2'' and select ``Department of Education'' from the ``Federal
Department or Agency'' drop-down menu, then click ``Submit.'' In the
Docket ID column, select ED-2007-OPE-0135 to add or view public
comments and to view supporting and related materials available
electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including
instructions for submitting comments, accessing documents, and viewing
the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through
the site's ``User Tips'' link.
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address
them to Sophia McArdle, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street,
NW., room 8019, Washington, DC 20006-8544.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments received from
members of the public (including those comments submitted by mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these submissions
available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. All submissions will be posted to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal without change, including personal
identifiers and contact information.
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. sophia.mcardle@ed.gov.
Information related to successful Jacquelyn Butler. Telephone:
completion of a rigorous secondary (202) 502-7890 or via the
school program. Internet:
jacquelyn.butler@ed.gov.
Information related to grade point Anthony Jones. Telephone: (202)
average. 502-7652 or via the Internet:
anthony.jones@ed.gov.
Information related to academic year Fred Sellers. Telephone: (202)
progression and prior enrollment. 502-7502 or via the Internet:
fred.sellers@ed.gov.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
Invitation to Comment
As outlined in the section of this notice entitled ``Negotiated
Rulemaking,'' significant public
[[Page 44051]]
participation, through four public hearings and three negotiated
rulemaking sessions, has occurred in developing this NPRM. Therefore,
in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure
Act, the Department invites you to submit comments regarding these
proposed regulations within 30 days. To ensure that your comments have
maximum effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to
identify clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed
regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your
comments in the same order as the proposed regulations.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed
regulations. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should
take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov.
You may also inspect the comments, in person, in room 8019, 1990 K
Street, NW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the first
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Negotiated Rulemaking
Section 492 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA),
requires the Secretary, before publishing any proposed regulations for
programs authorized by Title IV of the HEA (Title IV, HEA programs), to
obtain public involvement in the development of the proposed
regulations. After obtaining advice and recommendations from
individuals and representatives of groups involved in the Federal
student financial assistance programs, the Secretary must subject the
proposed regulations for the Title IV, HEA programs to a negotiated
rulemaking process. The proposed regulations that the Department
publishes must conform to final agreements resulting from that process
unless the Secretary reopens the process or provides a written
explanation to the participants in that process stating why the
Secretary has decided to depart from the agreements. Further
information on the negotiated rulemaking process can be found at:
https://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2007/nr.html.
On August 18, 2006, the Department published a notice in the
Federal Register (71 FR 47756) announcing our intent to establish up to
four negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare proposed regulations.
One committee would focus on issues related to the ACG and National
SMART Grant programs. A second committee would address issues related
to the Federal student loan programs. A third committee would address
programmatic, institutional eligibility, and general provisions issues.
Lastly, a fourth committee would address accreditation. The notice
requested nominations of individuals for membership on the committees
who could represent the interests of key stakeholder constituencies on
each committee. The four committees met to develop proposed regulations
over the course of several months, beginning in December 2006. This
NPRM proposes regulations relating to the ACG and National SMART Grant
programs that were discussed by the first committee mentioned in this
paragraph (the ``ACG and National SMART Grant Committee'').
The Department developed a list of proposed regulatory changes from
advice and recommendations submitted by individuals and organizations
in testimony submitted to the Department in a series of four public
hearings held on:
September 19, 2006, at the University of California-
Berkeley in Berkeley, California.
October 5, 2006, at the Loyola University in Chicago,
Illinois.
November 2, 2006, at the Royal Pacific Hotel Conference
Center in Orlando, Florida.
November 8, 2006, at the U.S. Department of Education in
Washington, DC.
In addition, the Department accepted written comments on possible
regulatory changes submitted directly to the Department by interested
parties and organizations. All regional meetings and a summary of all
comments received orally and in writing are posted as background
material in the docket and can also be accessed at https://www.ed.gov/
policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2007/hearings.html. Staff within the
Department also identified issues for discussion and negotiation.
The members of the ACG and National SMART Grant Committee were:
Gabriel Pendas, United States Students Association, and
Justin McMartin, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (alternate).
George Chin, City University of New York, and Catherine
Simoneaux, Loyola University New Orleans (alternate).
Thomas Babel, DeVry, Incorporated, and Matthew Hamill,
National Association of College and University Business Officers
(alternate).
Margaret Heisel, University of California, and Katherine
Haley Will, Gettysburg College (alternate).
Cecilia Cunningham, Middle College National Consortium,
and Tim Martin, University of Arkansas (alternate).
Lee Carrillo, Central New Mexico Community College, and
Patricia Hurley, Glendale Community College (alternate).
June Streckfus, Maryland Business Roundtable for
Education, and Denise Hedrick, Educational Collaborative (alternate).
Stanley Jones, Indiana Commission for Higher Education.
Joan Wodiska, National Governors Association, and Robin
Gelinas, Texas Education Agency (alternate).
Mary Beth Kelly, Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance
Agency.
Linda France, Kentucky Department of Education, and Wandra
Polk, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (alternate).
Joe McTighe, Council for American Private Education, and
William Estrada, Home School Legal Defense Association (alternate).
Elaine Copeland, Clinton Junior College.
Bill Lucia, Educational Testing Service, and Nancy Segal,
ACT (alternate).
Carney McCullough, U.S. Department of Education.
During its meetings, the ACG and National SMART Grant Committee
reviewed and discussed drafts of proposed regulations. It did not reach
consensus on the proposed regulations in this NPRM. More information on
the work of this committee can be found at: https://www.ed.gov/policy/
highered/reg/hearulemaking/2007/acg.html.
[[Page 44052]]
Significant Proposed Regulations
We discuss substantive issues by subject matter. Generally, we do
not address proposed regulatory provisions that are technical or
otherwise minor in effect.
Academic Year Progression (Sec. 691.6(a), (b), and (c))
Statute: Section 401A(c)(3)(A), (B), (C), and (d)(2) of the HEA
requires that a student's eligibility for an ACG or National SMART
Grant be based on the student's progression in academic years during
the student's enrollment in an undergraduate program of study. For
purposes of any program under Title IV of the HEA, which includes the
ACG and National SMART Grant programs, section 481(a)(2) of the HEA
defines an academic year based on two minimum measures--weeks of
instructional time and credit or clock hours. Under section 481(a)(2)
of the HEA, an academic year for an undergraduate program of study must
be at least: (1) 30 weeks of instructional time for a course of study
that measures its program length in credit hours, or 26 weeks of
instructional time for a course of study that measures its program
length in clock hours; and (2) 24 semester credit hours, 36 quarter
credit hours, or 900 clock hours. Accordingly, a student may be
eligible for an ACG during the first and second academic years of the
student's undergraduate education and for a National SMART Grant during
the third and fourth academic years of the student's undergraduate
education. Section 401A(d)(2)(B) makes clear that a student may not
receive more than two ACGs and two National SMART Grants.
General (Sec. 691.6(a), (b), and (c))
Current Regulations: Under current Sec. 691.6(a), (b), and (c) an
institution must determine a student's eligibility for ACGs and
National SMART Grants by determining the student's academic year
progression, taking into account the student's attendance in all ACG
and National SMART Grant eligible programs at all institutions attended
by the student during the course of that student's undergraduate
education. Thus, under the current regulations, a student's academic
year progression is not based on the student's enrollment in each
eligible program separately, but rather is based on all eligible
programs at all institutions in which a student has enrolled over the
course of the student's undergraduate education. Under the current
regulations, an institution must determine whether a student's previous
enrollment, as measured in both weeks of instructional time and credit
or clock hours, affects the student's eligibility for an ACG or
National SMART Grant in an academic year. For example, consider a
student who completes the weeks and hours of an academic year over
three semesters at one institution while enrolled in an ACG eligible
program. Although the student attended the institution on a full-time
basis for only one semester and received only half of the first-year
ACG, under the current regulations, because the student completed the
weeks and hours of an academic year, the student is no longer eligible
as a first-year student at any institution. If the student transferred
to another institution and that institution accepted less than the
credit hours of an academic year for that student, for purposes of
determining ACG eligibility, the student would be unable to receive the
second half of the first-year ACG because the student is considered to
have completed the first academic year in an ACG eligible program.
Proposed Regulations: We are proposing to revise current Sec.
691.6(a), (b), and (c) to 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. Under the
proposed regulations, the student who completes the weeks and hours of
an academic year over three semesters at one institution while enrolled
in an ACG eligible program may be eligible to receive the remaining
portion of the first-year ACG at another institution upon transfer if
the second institution determines that the student has remaining
eligibility for a first-academic-year Scheduled Award and considers the
student to be enrolled in the first academic year of an ACG eligible
program because it accepted less than an academic year in credit hours.
Reason: We are proposing these changes because we believe that they
would reduce the administrative burden for institutions implementing
the ACG and National SMART Grant programs.
During negotiated rulemaking, the Committee discussed the issue of
academic year progression at length. Many of the non-Federal
negotiators were concerned about the impact the regulations would have
on a student's eligibility and the resulting difficulties for
institutions administering the grant programs. Specifically, many of
the non-Federal negotiators asked the Department to interpret the terms
``first academic year,'' ``second academic year,'' ``third academic
year,'' and ``fourth academic year'' in section 401A of the HEA as a
student's grade level (e.g., freshman, sophomore, junior and senior
years).
Given that section 481(a)(2) of the HEA specifically describes the
minimal requirements for an ``academic year'' for purposes of any Title
IV, HEA program and that the ACG and National SMART Grant programs are
Title IV, HEA programs, the Department is unable to interpret the term
``academic year'' in any way that would be contrary to the statutory
requirements in section 481(a)(2) of the HEA. Many of the non-Federal
negotiators disagreed with the Department's position and suggested that
the Department has taken a more flexible approach when defining a
``year'' in other contexts. For example, 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. We have
interpreted the term ``successfully completed the first year of a
program of undergraduate education'' in section 428 of the HEA to
relate to a student's grade level, as determined by the institution. We
have the authority to interpret the statutory language in this way
because Congress had not provided us with a statutory definition of the
term ``first year.'' In contrast, Congress clearly defines the minimum
requirements of an ``academic year'' in section 481(a)(2) of the HEA.
Accordingly, we are unable to interpret ``academic year'' as the
student's grade level for purposes of the ACG and National SMART Grant
programs because it would be contrary to the HEA.
We appreciate the impact of administering the academic year
progression requirements for the ACG and National SMART Grant programs
on institutions and share the objective of reducing the administrative
burden of the programs. We believe that the proposed regulations, which
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, would simplify the academic year
progression analysis for the institution, especially when administering
aid for transfer students, as discussed in the following section.
Transfer Student (Sec. 691.6(d))
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to modify Sec. 691.6(d) to
codify, with changes, the guidance provided in the preamble of the
November 1, 2006 final regulations (71 FR 64401, 64405). Proposed Sec.
691.6(d)(3) would provide that when determining the appropriate
[[Page 44053]]
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. Under the proposed regulations, the estimated
number of weeks of instructional time that are counted 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. To determine how many weeks of
instructional time to count, proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(3)(ii) would
require that an institution multiply the number of credit or clock
hours that the institution accepted on transfer, except as prohibited
under Sec. 691.6(d)(2), by the number of weeks of instructional time
in the academic year and divide the product of the multiplication by
the credit or clock hours in the academic year. For example, consider
an institution that accepts 12 semester hours on transfer into a
student's eligible program that has an academic year of 24 semester
hours and 30 weeks of instructional time. The institution would
determine the estimated weeks of instructional time associated with the
12 semester hours by multiplying 12 times 30, which would equal 360,
and dividing 360 by 24 and determine that the student is considered to
have completed 15 weeks of instructional time based on the 12 hours
transferred. Under these proposed regulations, institutions may not
include in this estimate credit or clock hours that were not earned in
an ACG or National SMART Grant eligible program.
Reason: We propose adding Sec. 691.6(d)(3) because we believe this
change would facilitate the implementation of proposed Sec. 691.6(a),
(b), and (c) by clarifying how an institution would determine the
academic year progression--both in terms of credit and clock hours and
weeks of instructional time--of students who transfer to the
institution.
Alternative Methods for Determining Weeks of Instructional Time (Sec.
691.6(e), (f), (g), and (h))
Current Regulations: Section 691.6(d) of the current regulations
allows programs with traditional academic calendars (i.e., programs for
which an institution determines payments under current Sec. 691.63(b)
and (c)) to treat summer terms as the same length as other terms when
counting weeks of instructional time for purposes of determining a
student's eligibility for an ACG or National SMART Grant. For these
programs, ``traditional academic calendars'' are calendars that consist
of two semesters or three quarters in the fall through spring and have
a summer term with a minimum full-time enrollment standard of 12
semester or 12 quarter hours.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to remove current Sec. 691.6(d)
because this provision would be superseded by the alternative methods
of determining weeks of instructional time included in proposed Sec.
691.6(f), (g) and (h).
For programs with traditional academic calendars, proposed Sec.
691.6(e)(2) would provide three alternative methods for determining the
weeks of instructional time for a student's academic year progression.
These methods would allow institutions with traditional academic
calendar programs, based on specified criteria that assure general
compliance with the academic year requirements, to (a) count weeks of
instructional time based on the number of terms the student has
attended, (b) attribute weeks of instructional time to the credit hours
earned by the student, or (c) use the student's grade level as a basis
for determining weeks of instructional time completed. Because these
alternatives would not apply to eligible programs without traditional
academic calendars, an institution would always be required to provide
an exact determination of student academic year progression for these
nontraditional programs.
Under the ``terms-attended'' alternative reflected in proposed
Sec. 691.6(f), an institution would determine the weeks of
instructional time a student has attended at the institution based on
the number of terms the student has attended. For each term completed,
a student in an eligible program would be considered to have completed
the same portion of an academic year (in weeks of instructional time)
as the portion of the academic year used to calculate the student's
payment for a payment period. For example, consider an eligible program
with two semesters with 15 weeks of instructional time in each term and
a summer term of 12 weeks of instructional time that has a defined
academic year of 24 semester credit hours and 30 weeks of instructional
time. A payment for a payment period in this eligible program would be
one-half of a student's Scheduled Award under current Sec. 691.63(b).
Under proposed Sec. 691.6(f), a student in this eligible program who
has completed four consecutive terms, including a summer term, may be
considered to have completed 60 weeks of instructional time without
reference to the number of credits earned in those terms. The
institution must, under Sec. 691.6(a), determine both the number of
credit hours the student earned as well as the weeks of instructional
time completed by the student in order to determine the student's
academic year progression. So, if the student in the example in this
paragraph completed four terms with only six credits in each term, that
student would not have been eligible for a first-year ACG because the
student was enrolled as a less-than-full-time student. That student,
therefore, would be considered a second-year student at the end of the
fourth term despite the fact that the student completed the equivalent
of two academic years in weeks of instructional time under the ``terms-
attended'' alternative. This is because a student must meet both the
``weeks of instructional time'' and ``credit or clock hours''
requirements to progress from one academic year to the next. The
student in this example did not meet the credit or clock hours
requirement necessary to progress to third-year status. Therefore,
regardless of the number of weeks of instructional time the student
completed, he or she is not considered a third-year student. Based on
both weeks of instructional time and credit hours, the student is a
second-year student.
Under the ``credits-earned'' alternative reflected in proposed
Sec. 691.6(g), an institution would determine the weeks of
instructional time that a student has attended based on the credit
hours the student actually earned in his or her ACG or National SMART
Grant eligible program. The weeks of instructional time attended would
be considered to be in the same proportion to weeks of instructional
time in the academic year as the credit hours that the student has
earned are in proportion to the credit hours in the academic year. For
example, consider an eligible program with two semesters with 16 weeks
of instructional time in each term and a summer term of 12 weeks of
instructional time that has an academic year of 30 semester credit
hours and 32 weeks of instructional time. Under proposed Sec.
691.6(g), a student who earned 60 credit hours in this eligible program
would be considered to have completed 64 weeks of instructional time,
while a student who earned 45 credit hours in this eligible program
would be considered to have completed 48 weeks of
[[Page 44054]]
instructional time. The student who had earned 60 credit hours would be
considered to have completed his or her second academic year, while the
student who had earned 45 credit hours would still be considered to be
in his or her second academic year.
To use the ``grade-level'' alternative reflected in proposed Sec.
691.6(h)(1), an eligible program must qualify under proposed Sec.
691.6(h)(1)(ii) and (2)(i) by establishing that at least two-thirds of
the full-time students in the program are completing at least the weeks
of instructional time in the academic year for each grade level
completed. Thus, under this alternative method, a student who completes
a grade level at the institution is considered to have completed the
academic years through that grade level in weeks of instructional time
as long as the student has also earned at least the minimum number of
credit hours for the academic year. For example, consider an eligible
program with two semesters with 15 weeks of instructional time in each
term and a summer term of 12 weeks of instructional time that has an
academic year of 24 semester hours and 30 weeks of instructional time.
The institution considers a student in this eligible program to advance
in grade level after earning 30 semester hours. Thus, under the
``grade-level'' alternative method, a student who has earned 60 credit
hours would be classified as a junior in a National SMART Grant
eligible program. As a junior, the student would be considered to have
completed the weeks of instructional time of the first and second
academic years because the student also would have met the credit hour
requirement at the institution by earning 60 semester hours, which is
more than the minimum number of credit hours required for two academic
years (in this example, the minimum credit hours would be 48 semester
hours).
Under proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(2), the ``credits-earned'' and
``grade-level'' alternative methods reflected in proposed Sec.
691.6(g) and (h), respectively, 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, as discussed under the next heading
Limitations on Determining Weeks of Instructional Time.
In addition, under proposed Sec. 691.6(e)(2)(ii), an institution
that chooses to use one of the alternative methods of determining weeks
of instructional time would need to do so for all students enrolled in
the eligible program. Under proposed Sec. 691.6(e)(3), upon request
from a student, an institution must also provide an exact determination
of the academic progression for that student. An exact accounting of
academic year progression for a student would always preempt any use of
the three alternative methods for determining the weeks of
instructional time that the student has attended. We discuss the
requirements of proposed Sec. 691.6(e)(3) in more detail in the
Student Request to Determine Academic Year Level section of this
notice.
Reason: We propose the changes reflected in Sec. 691.6(f), (g) and
(h) because we believe that the proposed alternative methods for
determining weeks of instructional time would help alleviate the
administrative burden on institutions, especially those with
traditional academic calendars, to calculate the weeks of instructional
time component of a student's academic year progression.
Limitations on Determining Weeks of Instructional Time (Sec.
691.6(d)(2))
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: In proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(2), we make clear
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. Under these proposed regulations,
an institution could not consider these credits when determining a
student's weeks of instructional time under an exact accounting.
Moreover, an institution would not be permitted to assign any weeks of
instructional time to these credits when determining a transfer
student's academic year progression, or when determining any student's
academic year progression under the ``credits-earned'' or ``grade-
level'' alternate methods reflected in proposed Sec. 691.6(g) and
Sec. 691.6(h), respectively. Proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(2)(ii) would
provide an exception that would require an institution to assign weeks
of instructional time to determine 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.
Reason: Students earn the credits described in proposed Sec.
691.6(d)(2)(i)(A) through (C) while not enrolled in an ACG or National
SMART Grant eligible program, and, therefore, these credits do not have
weeks of instructional time in an ACG or National SMART Grant eligible
program associated with them. Proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(2)(i) is intended
to ensure that an institution accurately determines a student's
academic year progression in his or her ACG or National SMART Grant
eligible program. We believe that excluding the credits described in
proposed Sec. 691.6(d)(2)(i)(A) through (C) from the calculation of
weeks of instructional time is appropriate because it would treat
students consistently and would preserve two full years of ACG
eligibility for many students who might otherwise have such credits
counted in a way that could make them ineligible for a first-year ACG.
We also believe that it is appropriate to consider weeks of
instructional time completed by a student while enrolled in an ACG
eligible program in determining a student's academic year progression
for National SMART Grants.
Student Request To Determine Academic Year Level (Sec. 691.6(e))
Current Regulations: None.
Proposed Regulations: In proposed Sec. 691.6(e)(2)(iii), we have
added language to clarify that a student can request and receive an
exact determination of the student's academic year standing at an
institution based on his or her attendance in all ACG and National
SMART Grant eligible programs at that institution and on any qualifying
credit hours accepted on transfer into the student's ACG or National
SMART Grant eligible program. Proposed Sec. 691.6(e)(3) also would
provide that if an institution performs an exact accounting of a
student's standing, it may not use any of the alternative methods in
proposed Sec. 691.6(f), (g) and (h) for determining that student's
academic year standing.
Reason: We believe that it is appropriate to add proposed Sec.
691.6(e) to the regulations because we consider an exact determination
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. We encourage institutions to use an exact determination whenever
possible because it is necessarily more accurate than any of the
estimates obtained
[[Page 44055]]
under the alternative methods reflected in proposed Sec. 691.6(f), (g)
and (h).
Grade Point Average (GPA) (Sec. 691.15)
Statute: Section 401A(c) of the HEA establishes the general
criteria for a student's eligibility for payment under the ACG and
National SMART Grant Programs. Section 401A(c)(3)(B)(ii) of the HEA
requires a student to have obtained a cumulative GPA of at least 3.0
(or the equivalent as determined under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary) at the end of the student's first academic year in order to
be eligible for ACG funds during the student's second academic year of
a program of undergraduate education. For a student to be eligible to
receive a National SMART Grant award for the third and fourth academic
years, section 401A(c)(3)(C)(ii) of the HEA requires a student to have
obtained a cumulative GPA of at least 3.0 (or the equivalent as
determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary) in the
coursework required for the eligible major.
Numeric Equivalent (Sec. 691.15(b)(1)(iii)(D), 691.15(c)(3), and
691.15(g))
Current Regulations: Under current Sec. 691.15(b)(1)(iii)(C), to
receive second-year ACG funds, a student must have obtained a GPA of
3.0 or higher on a 4.0 scale, or the equivalent, for the first academic
year of the student's enrollment in an ACG eligible program. Under
current Sec. 691.15(c)(3), to receive a National SMART Grant, a
student must have obtained, through the most recently completed payment
period, a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher on a 4.0 scale, or the
equivalent, in the student's National SMART Grant eligible program.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to revise Sec. 691.15 by
clarifying in proposed Sec. 691.15(b)(1)(iii)(D) and (c)(3) that, for
purposes of eligibility for ACG and National SMART Grants, institutions
that assess grade point averages on a numeric scale other than a 4.0
scale must ensure that the minimum GPA requirement on that scale is the
numeric equivalent of a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher on a 4.0 scale.
We also propose to add a new Sec. 691.15(g) providing minimum
standards for determining numeric equivalencies for purposes of the ACG
and National SMART Grant programs.
Reason: During negotiated rulemaking, the non-Federal negotiators
requested that the Department clarify the meaning of the words ``or the
equivalent'' in current Sec. 691.15(b)(1)(iii)(C) and (c)(3). Some of
the non-Federal negotiators asked whether the ``or the equivalent''
language meant that an institution could determine its own equivalency
of a grading scale or simply an equivalent measure on a different
numeric scale. We believe Congress clearly intended for the equivalency
to relate to an objective means of assessing a student's GPA and not to
permit institutions to use a subjective measure. The non-Federal
negotiators discussed this topic and, ultimately, agreed with the
Department's interpretation of the HEA.
In accordance with proposed Sec. 691.15(g), an institution that
has one or more academic programs that measure academic performance
using alternatives to standard numeric grading procedures would be
required to develop and apply an academically defensible equivalency
policy with a numeric scale for purposes of determining student
eligibility under the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. That
equivalency policy would need to be in writing and available to
students upon request. The policy would also need to include clear
differentiations of student performance to support a determination that
a student has performed, in his or her ACG or National SMART Grant
program, at a level commensurate with at least a 3.0 GPA on a 4.0
scale. Generally, a grading policy that includes only ``satisfactory/
unsatisfactory'', ``pass/fail'', or other similar nonnumeric
assessments would not be a numeric equivalent under the proposed
regulations. However, such assessments would be considered numeric
equivalents if the institution could demonstrate that the ``pass'' or
``satisfactory'' standard has the numeric equivalent of at least a 3.0
GPA on a 4.0 scale, or that a student's performance for tests and
assignments in the ACG or National SMART Grant program yielded a
numeric equivalent of a 3.0 GPA on a 4.0 scale. Under proposed Sec.
691.15(g), the institution's equivalency policies would need to be
consistent with any other standards that 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.
Transfer GPA--ACG (Sec. 691.15(f)(1))
Current Regulations: In the case of a transfer student who has
completed the first academic year of enrollment in an ACG eligible
program at the prior institution, for the first payment period of
enrollment at the institution to which the student transfers, current
Sec. 691.15(d)(1) provides that the institution must calculate the
student's GPA using the grades earned by the student in the coursework
from any prior institution accepted toward the student's ACG eligible
program, regardless of the number of weeks associated with the credit
or clock hours accepted for the student on transfer. In instances when
a student completes his or her first academic year after transferring,
institutions have been able to use their own policies on how transfer
credits are counted to determine whether the grades for the transfer
credits are included in the GPA calculated to determine the student's
eligibility for another ACG award.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 691.15(f)(1)(i) would provide
that, for a student who transfers to an institution that accepts at
least the credit or clock hours for an entire academic year, but less
than for two academic years, the GPA to determine second-year
eligibility is calculated using the grades from all coursework accepted
by the current institution into the student's eligible program. Under
proposed Sec. 691.15(f)(1)(ii), for a student who transfers to an
institution that accepts less than the credit or clock hours for an
academic year from all prior postsecondary institutions attended by the
student, the GPA to determine second-year eligibility is calculated by
combining the grades from all coursework accepted on transfer by the
current institution into the student's 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 the
student's first academic year in the eligible program. In conjunction
with the proposed changes to 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.
Reason: The changes in proposed Sec. 691.15(f)(1) are being made
in response to requests from the non-Federal negotiators to clarify how
to determine the GPA for transfer students. The non-Federal negotiators
said that the GPA calculations for the ACG and National SMART Grant
programs were confusing because the programs have different
requirements. The non-Federal negotiators also sought to reduce the
administrative burden on institutions when determining transfer student
GPA for ACGs.
Proposed Sec. 691.15(f)(1) would clarify that, for a second-year
ACG, the GPA
[[Page 44056]]
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). The
requirement that the GPA for a transfer student be determined based on
the coursework accepted into the ACG-eligible program at the current
institution, which is reflected in proposed Sec. 691.15(f)(1)(i),
would clarify that an institution only needs to track the coursework it
accepts into the student's ACG-eligible program. Finally, under
proposed Sec. 691.15(f)(1)(ii), an institution could combine grades
from coursework earned at prior institutions with grades from
coursework earned at the current institution to calculate the GPA for
the first academic year in an ACG eligible program for the purpose of
establishing eligibility for the second-year ACG in a way that
minimizes institutional burden.
Transfer GPA--National SMART Grant (Sec. 691.15(f)(2))
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 691.15(c)(3) states that, in
order to be eligible to receive a National SMART Grant for the third or
fourth academic year of the student's eligible program, the student
must have a cumulative GPA through the most-recently completed payment
period of at least 3.0 or higher on a 4.0 scale, or the equivalent,
consistent with other institutional measures for academic and Title IV,
HEA program purposes, in the student's National SMART Grant eligible
program. For a transfer student, current Sec. 691.15(d) requires an
institution to calculate the student's GPA for the student's first
payment period of enrollment using the grades earned by the student in
the coursework from any prior institution that it accepts towards the
student's National SMART Grant eligible program if the student would be
otherwise eligible for a National SMART Grant. However, under current
Sec. 691.15(d)(2), if the institution accepts no credits towards the
student's eligible program, the institution must consider the student
to be ineligible for National SMART Grant funds until the student
completes at least one payment period in an eligible program with a
qualifying GPA. Under the current regulatory framework, after the
initial payment period, an institution should calculate a student's GPA
consistent with its other measures for academic and Title IV, HEA
program purposes.
Proposed Regulations: Under proposed Sec. 691.15(f)(2), if a
student transfers from one institution to an institution at which the
student is eligible for a National SMART Grant, the institution to
which the student transfers would be required to determine that
student's eligibility for the first payment period using one of two
methods, whichever method coincides with the institution's academic
policy.
Under the first method, which is reflected in proposed Sec.
691.15(f)(2)(i)(A), if an institution's academic policy does not
incorporate grades from coursework that it accepts on transfer into the
student's GPA at that institution, then it would be required to
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 National
SMART Grant eligible program. That GPA would be used only for the first
payment period of the student's program. The institution would then be
required to apply its academic policy for subsequent payment periods
and not incorporate, into the student's GPA, the student's grades from
the coursework the institution accepts on transfer.
Under the second method, which is reflected in proposed Sec.
691.15(f)(2)(i)(B), if an institution's academic policy incorporates
grades from coursework that it accepts on transfer into the student's
GPA at that institution, then the grades assigned to the coursework
accepted by the institution into the student's National SMART Grant
eligible program would be used as the student's cumulative GPA to
determine eligibility for the first payment period of enrollment and
would be included in the student's cumulative GPA for all subsequent
payment periods in accordance with the institution's academic policy.
Reason: During negotiated rulemaking, the non-Federal negotiators
believed the current regulations sufficiently and appropriately
addressed the GPA calculation for a transfer student eligible for a
National SMART Grant, but they requested that the proposed regulatory
language clarify how an institution should calculate a GPA based on
whether its academic policy incorporated transfer grades into the GPA
at that institution. The proposed regulations for calculating a GPA for
a transfer student who is eligible for a National SMART Grant would
codify existing practice and the non-Federal negotiators were
comfortable with taking this approach.
Prior Enrollment in a Postsecondary Educational Program and Student
Eligibility (Sec. 691.15)
Statute: Section 401A(c)(3)(A)(ii) of the HEA provides that, for a
student to be eligible for a first-year ACG, the student must not have
been previously enrolled in a program of undergraduate education.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 691.15(b)(1)(ii)(B) provides
that a student is eligible for a first-year ACG if the student was not
previously enrolled as a regular student in an ACG eligible program
while enrolled in high school. Under the current regulations,
therefore, a student is eligible for a first-year ACG after graduating
from high school even if--
While in high school, the student enrolled in an ACG
ineligible program, e.g., a certificate program, or postsecondary
courses without being admitted as a regular student; or
After high school, the student was enrolled in an ACG
eligible program as long as the student had not completed his or her
first academic year of enrollment in the eligible program.
Under the current regulations, a student enrolled in dual-credit or
early college programs may be eligible for an ACG after completing
secondary school if the student is not admitted as a regular student in
an eligible program while in secondary school.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 691.15(b)(1)(ii)(C)(2) would
amend the current regulations by extending ACG eligibility to a
postsecondary 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.
Reason: During discussions at negotiated rulemaking, the non-
Federal negotiators noted current statutory and regulatory restrictions
on postsecondary institutions that limit an eligible institution from
admitting most high school students as regular students. The non-
Federal negotiators considered potential problems under the current
regulations, especially in relation to dual-credit and early college
programs.
We agree with the concerns raised by the non-Federal negotiators
and believe it is important to narrow this restriction on ACG student
eligibility resulting from a student participating in dual-credit or
early college programs while enrolled in secondary school. Thus, we
propose to change current Sec. 691.15(b)(1)(ii)(B) to ensure that a
student would not be disqualified for a first-year ACG award if that
student
[[Page 44057]]
enrolled in an ACG eligible program while in high school, so long as
the student was above the age of compulsory school attendance at the
time and never received Federal student aid funds while in high school.
Because the student in this example could not qualify for any Federal
student aid funds while enrolled in high school under section 484(a)(1)
of the HEA, the student's enrollment would not disqualify the student
for an ACG at a later date. This proposed change would conform with the
institutional eligibility requirement in 34 CFR 600.4, 600.5, and 600.6
that an institution may admit as regular students only persons who have
a high school diploma or the equivalent, or who are beyond the age of
compulsory school attendance.
Eligible Majors (Sec. Sec. 691.15 and 691.17)
Statute: Section 401A(c)(3)(C)(i) of the HEA provides that a
student may receive a National SMART Grant if the student is pursuing a
major in the physical, life, or computer sciences; mathematics;
technology; or engineering (as determined by the Secretary); or a
foreign language that the Secretary, in consultation with the Director
of National Intelligence, determines to be critical to the national
security of the United States.
Documenting Major (Sec. 691.15)
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 691.15(c)(2) requires that, to
be eligible for a National SMART Grant, a student must formally declare
his or her eligible major in accordance with the institution's academic
requirements. However, if under an institution's procedures, a student
would not be able to formally declare a major in time to qualify for a
National SMART Grant, the student must demonstrate his or her intent to
declare an eligible major as documented by the institution. Under
current Sec. 691.15(c)(2), as soon as the student is able to formally
declare a major, the student must do so in order to remain eligible for
a National SMART Grant. In the case of a student who has declared or
intends to declare an eligible major, the student must enroll in the
courses necessary to complete the degree program and to fulfill the
eligible major requirements.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 691.15(d)(1) and 691.15(e)
would clarify how an institution must document a student's eligible
major, and progress in the eligible program and major, by requiring the
institution to maintain the following documentation: (a) Documentation
of the declared major or, in the case of a student's intent to declare
a major, a written declaration of intent provided by the student that
has been received recently enough for the institution to determine that
it still correctly reflects the student's stated intent; and (b)
written documentation showing that the student is completing coursework
at an appropriate pace in the student's declared eligible major or the
eligible major that the student intends to declare.
Reason: During negotiated rulemaking, the non-Federal negotiators
sought clarification on how institutions should document a student's
intent to declare a major to ensure appropriate compliance.
Specifically, the non-Federal negotiators asked the Department to
provide examples of how institutions should document a student's intent
to declare a major. The changes reflected in proposed Sec.
691.15(d)(1) and 691.15(e) would clarify how institutions must document
a student's declared major or intent to declare a specific major and
also how institutions must confirm that the student is taking the
appropriate courses for the student's eligible program and eligible
major. We think that these procedures are appropriate because they
would enable the Department to monitor compliance with the statutory
requirement that, to be eligible for a National SMART Grant, a student
must pursue an eligible major.
Determination of Eligible Majors (Sec. 691.2(d) and Sec. 691.17)
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 691.17(a) provides that, for
each award year, the Secretary identifies eligible majors in the
physical, life, or computer sciences; mathematics; technology;
engineering; and, after consulting with the Director of National
Intelligence, critical foreign languages.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 691.17(d) would provide a
process by which institutions of higher education could request that
additional majors be added to the Department's list of eligible majors
for National SMART Grants. Under proposed Sec. 691.17(d), an
institution would identify a proposed additional eligible major by its
Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code developed by the
National Center for Education Statistics. For the sake of clarity, we
also have proposed to add to current Sec. 691.2(d) a definition of the
term CIP as it pertains to the National SMART Grant Program.
Reason: The non-Federal negotiators requested a mechanism by which
institutions of higher education could ask the Department to consider
adding majors to its list of eligible majors. We believe it is
reasonable to incorporate a process in the proposed regulations to
facilitate requests from institutions to add additional majors in a
consistent manner, for the purpose of establishing a student's National
SMART Grant eligibility.
The CIP is a taxonomy of instructional program classifications and
descriptions developed by the U.S. Department of Education's National
Center for Education Statistics. For purposes of the National SMART
Grant Program, the CIP coding scheme is currently used to identify
eligible majors. As part of the new process, reflected in proposed
Sec. 691.17(d), institutions would need to identify additional majors
by referencing the name of the proposed additional major and its CIP
code. We would continue the current process of publishing the final
list of eligible majors for each award year on the Federal Student Aid
Information for Financial Aid Professionals Web site.
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)
Statute: Section 401A(c)(3)(A)(i) and (B)(i) of the HEA requires
that a student must have successfully completed a rigorous secondary
school program of study, after January 1, 2006 for first-year students
and after January 1, 2005 for second-year students, in order to receive
an ACG.
Current Regulations: Under current Sec. 691.15(b)(2)(i), an
institution must document a student's completion of a rigorous
secondary school program of study using documentation from the
appropriate cognizant authority provided by that authority or by the
student.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 691.15(b)(1)(ii)(A) and Sec.
691.15(b)(1)(iii)(A) would clarify that, in order to successfully
complete a rigorous secondary school program of study, a student must,
in addition to completing the rigorous program of study, obtain a high
school diploma or for a home-schooled student, receive a high school
diploma or certification of completion of a secondary school education
provided by the student's parent or guardian. Proposed Sec.
691.15(b)(2)(i) would clarify that an institution must document a
student's successful completion of a rigorous secondary school program
of study using documentation provided by the student or cognizant
authority.
Reason: The non-Federal negotiators requested that the regulations
clarify the meaning of the term ``successful'' in the context of
completing a rigorous
[[Page 44058]]
secondary school program of study. Specifically, the non-Federal
negotiators asked that the proposed regulations clarify that to
``successfully'' complete a rigorous secondary school program of study,
a student must both (a) receive a high school diploma or, for a home-
schooled student, receive a high school diploma or certification of
completion of a secondary school education provided by the student's
parent or guardian; and (b) successfully complete a rigorous secondary
school program of study as recognized by the Secretary under current
Sec. 691.16. We believe that the proposed changes address the non-
Federal negotiators' concerns.
Under proposed Sec. 691.16, in the case of a rigorous secondary
school program of study established by a State educational agency (SEA)
or local educational agency (LEA), the specific requirements for
successfully completing a rigorous secondary school program of study
would be determined by that SEA or LEA and may include, for example, a
qualitative measure such as a minimum GPA, in addition to receiving a
high school diploma or, for a home-schooled student, receiving a high
school diploma or certification of completion of a secondary school
education provided by the student's parent or guardian.
The concept of ``success'' in relationship to completing a rigorous
secondary school program of study for ACG purposes is also addressed in
proposed Sec. 691.16(d), which is substantially the same as current
Sec. 691.16(d). First, the requirement for successfully completing the
set of courses designated by the Secretary under proposed Sec.
691.16(d)(2) would be that a student must receive credit for those
courses, in addition to receiving a high school diploma or, for a home-
schooled student, receiving a high school diploma or certification of
completion of a secondary school education provided by the student's
parent or guardian. The proposed regulations would not require that a
student meet a minimum qualitative standard for the courses, such as
receiving a minimum GPA, as long as the student received credit for
those courses. Moreover, the proposed regulations would not include any
minimum qualitative measure for successful completion of the coursework
associated with AP or IB courses under current Sec. 691.16(d)(4) and
(5) as long as the student completes the AP or IB coursework and
receives a passing grade. Thus, nothing in these proposed regulations
would change current Sec. 691.16(d)(4) and (5), under which a student
is considered to have successfully completed a rigorous secondary
school program of study by completing and passing the required IB or AP
courses and scoring a 4 or higher on the corresponding IB exams or a 3
or higher on the corresponding AP exams, and obtaining a high school
diploma or, for a home-schooled student, a high school diploma or
certification of completion of a secondary school education provided by
the student's parent or guardian.
Recognition of a Rigorous Secondary School Program of Study (Sec.
691.16)
Statute: Section 401A(f) of the HEA requires the Secretary to
recognize at least one rigorous secondary school program of study in
each State for the purpose of determining student eligibility for an
ACG. Section 401A(c)(3)(A)(i) and (B)(i) provides that a rigorous
secondary school program of study is established by an SEA or LEA.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 691.16 provides that, for an
award year, the Secretary recognizes in each State at least one
rigorous secondary school program of study established by an LEA the
State has authorized to establish a separate secondary school program
of study or an SEA. The current regulations also provide for the
Secretary to recognize additional secondary school programs of study as
rigorous, in addition to any that may subsequently be established by
SEAs and LEAs and recognized by the Secretary. These additional
programs include certain advanced and honors programs established by
States and in existence for the 2004-2005 or 2005-2006 school year.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. 691.16(b)(2) would allow SEAs
and LEAs to request recognition of rigorous secondary school programs
of study for school years beyond the immediate next school year.
Proposed Sec. 691.16(d)(1) would include a new element providing for
the continued recognition of advanced or honors secondary school
programs of study by the Secretary for school years subsequent to the
2005-2006 school year.
Reason: We believe that the proposed regulations would provide an
efficient process for the Secretary to recognize rigorous secondary
school programs of study for multiple years into the future. This
process would allow SEAs and LEAs to provide students with information
about what constitutes a rigorous secondary school program of study now
and in future years. We believe that providing students with this
information would have several positive outcomes. First, the
information would provide certainty for a student that his or her
secondary school program of study will qualify as rigorous for that
student's State and graduation year. Second, having this information
would allow a student to perform long-range planning of his or her
secondary school program of study to ensure that a recognized rigorous
secondary school program of study is completed. Third, SEAs and LEAs
would be able to perform long-term resource allocation planning to
ensure that the recognized rigorous secondary school program of study
is actually available to students.
Executive Order 12866
1. 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 the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to
result in a rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a
material way (also referred to as an ``economically significant''
rule); (2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the
budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or
the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive order, it has been
determined that this proposed regulatory action would 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 proposed regulations address a range of issues affecting
students and institutions participating in the ACG and National SMART
Grant programs. Prior to the start of negotiated rulem