Academic Competitiveness Grant Program and National Science and Mathematics Access To Retain Talent Grant Program, 61248-61267 [E7-21068]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 208 (Monday, October 29, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61248-61267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21068]



[[Page 61247]]

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

Part III





Department of Education





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



34 CFR Part 691



 Academic Competitiveness Grant Program and National Science and 
Mathematics Access To Retain Talent Grant Program; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72 , No. 208 / Monday, October 29, 2007 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 61248]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 691

RIN 1840-AC92
[Docket ID ED-2007-OPE-0135]


Academic Competitiveness Grant Program and National Science and 
Mathematics Access To Retain Talent Grant Program

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulations for the Academic 
Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National Science and Mathematics Access 
to Retain Talent Grant (National SMART Grant) programs. The Secretary 
is amending these regulations to reduce administrative burden for 
program participants and to clarify program requirements.

DATES: Effective Date: These regulations are effective July 1, 2008.
    Implementation Date: The Secretary has determined, in accordance 
with section 482(c)(2)(A) of the Higher Education Act, of 1965, as 
amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1089(c)(2)(A)), that institutions that 
administer the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs may, at their 
discretion, choose to implement these final regulations in their 
entirety, or by section, on or after November 1, 2007. For further 
information, see the section entitled ``IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF THESE 
REGULATIONS'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Topic                    Contact person and information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General information and information      Sophia McArdle. Telephone:
 related to recognition of rigorous       (202) 219-7078 or via the
 secondary school programs and eligible   Internet:
 majors.                                  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       Carney McCullough. Telephone:
 average.                                 (202) 502-7639 or via the
                                          Internet:
                                          carney.mccullough@ed.gov or
                                          Anthony Jones. Telephone:
                                          (202) 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: On August 7, 2007, the Secretary published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the ACG and National SMART 
Grant Programs in the Federal Register (72 FR 44050).
    In the preamble to the NPRM, the Secretary discussed on pages 44052 
through 44058 the major changes proposed in that document to strengthen 
and improve the administration of the ACG and National SMART Grant 
Programs authorized under the HEA (as amended by the Higher Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-171), enacted on February 8, 
2006, 20 U.S.C. 1070a-1 (HERA)). These include the following:
     Amending Sec.  691.2 to add a definition for the term 
Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP), as that term is used in 
connection with the National SMART Grant Program.
     Amending Sec.  691.6(a), (b), and (c) to require an 
institution in which a student is currently enrolled to determine the 
student's academic year progression based on the student's attendance 
in all ACG and National SMART Grant eligible programs only at that 
institution.
     Amending Sec.  691.6 by adding a new paragraph (d)(3) to 
provide that when determining the appropriate academic year for a 
transfer student, the institution to which the student transferred must 
count both (a) the number of credit or clock hours earned by the 
student at prior institutions that are accepted for the student, and 
(b) an estimated number of weeks of instructional time completed by the 
student.
     Amending Sec.  691.6 by adding paragraphs (e), (f), (g), 
and (h) to provide for three alternative methods to determine the weeks 
of instructional time for a student's academic year progression, and to 
provide that an institution choosing to use one of these alternative 
methods must do so for all students enrolled in the eligible program.
     Amending Sec.  691.6 by adding a new paragraph (d)(2) to 
clarify that when determining academic year progression for a student 
(a) an institution may not assign any weeks of instructional time to 
certain credit or clock hours accepted toward a student's eligible 
program if those credit or clock hours were earned from Advanced 
Placement (AP) programs, International Baccalaureate (IB) programs, 
testing out, life experience, other similarly earned credits or credits 
earned while not enrolled as a regular student in an ACG or National 
SMART Grant eligible program, or coursework that is not at the 
postsecondary level, such as remedial coursework; and (b) an 
institution must assign weeks of instructional time to determine 
National SMART Grant eligibility for periods in which a student was 
enrolled in an ACG-eligible program before declaring, or certifying his 
or her intent to declare, an eligible major.
     Amending Sec.  691.6 by adding paragraph (e) to provide 
that a student can request and receive an exact determination of his or 
her academic year standing and to provide that, if the institution 
performs an exact accounting, it may not employ any of the alternative 
methods for determining that student's academic year standing reflected 
in Sec.  691.6(f), (g), or (h).
     Amending Sec.  691.15 by adding paragraph (g) to clarify 
that, for purposes of eligibility for ACG and National SMART Grants, an 
institution that assesses grade point average (GPA) on a numeric scale 
other than a 4.0 scale must ensure that its minimum GPA requirement 
meets the same numeric standard as a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher on 
a 4.0 scale.
     Amending Sec.  691.15 by adding paragraph (f)(1) to 
clarify that institutions are required to calculate a student's GPA for 
determining second-year ACG eligibility as follows:
    [cir] For a student who transfers to an institution that accepts 
into the student's ACG eligible program at least the credit or clock 
hours for one academic year, but for less than two academic years, the 
institution must calculate the student's GPA using the

[[Page 61249]]

grades from all coursework accepted into the student's ACG eligible 
program.
    [cir] For a student who transfers to an institution that accepts 
less than the credit or clock hours for an academic year into the 
student's ACG eligible program, the institution must calculate the 
student's GPA by combining the grades from all coursework accepted into 
the student's ACG eligible program with the grades for coursework 
earned at the current institution through the payment period in which 
the student completes the credit or clock hours for his or her first 
academic year.
     Amending Sec.  691.15 by adding paragraph (f)(2) to 
require that, for a transfer student who transfers from one institution 
to another institution at which the student is eligible for a National 
SMART Grant, the subsequent institution determines that student's 
eligibility for the first payment period using one of two methods, 
depending on whether it incorporates the grades from the student's 
previous coursework that it accepts on transfer into the student's GPA 
at the subsequent institution.
     Amending Sec.  691.15(b) to extend eligibility for a 
first-academic-year ACG to any student who enrolls as a regular student 
in an ACG eligible program while in high school provided that the 
student is beyond the age of compulsory school attendance.
     Amending Sec.  691.15 by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to 
require an institution to document a student's eligible major and 
progress in the eligible program and major by maintaining 
documentation, such as the following: (a) Documentation of the declared 
major, including written declaration of intent to declare an eligible 
major provided by the student; and (b) written documentation showing 
that the student is progressing in coursework leading to a degree in 
the student's intended or declared eligible major; and (c) written 
documentation that the student is enrolling in the courses necessary to 
complete a degree in the intended or declared eligible major.
     Amending Sec.  691.17 to provide a process for 
institutions of higher education to request additional majors to be 
added to the list of eligible majors for National SMART Grants.
     Amending Sec.  691.15(b) to require that, in order to 
successfully complete a rigorous secondary school program of study, a 
student must obtain a high school diploma or, for a home-schooled 
student, receive a high school diploma or parental certification of 
completion of a secondary school education.
     Amending Sec.  691.16(b) to allow State educational 
agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) to request 
recognition of rigorous secondary school programs of study for school 
years beyond the immediate next school year.
     Amending Sec.  691.16(d)(1) so that advanced or honors 
secondary school programs of study continue to be recognized as 
rigorous secondary school programs of study by the Secretary for school 
years subsequent to the 2005-2006 school year.
    There are no significant differences between the NPRM and these 
final regulations resulting from public comment or legislative action.

Implementation Date of These Regulations

    Section 482(c) of the HEA requires that regulations affecting 
programs under Title IV of the HEA be published in final form by 
November 1 prior to the start of the award year (July 1) to which they 
apply. However, that section also permits the Secretary to designate 
any regulation as one that an entity subject to the regulation may 
choose to implement earlier and the conditions under which the entity 
may implement the provisions early.
    Consistent with the intent of this regulatory effort to reduce 
administrative burden for program participants and to clarify program 
requirements for the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs, the 
Secretary is using the authority granted her under section 482(c) to 
designate all regulations subject to that section included in this 
document for early implementation at the discretion of each 
institution. Therefore, the regulations in this document may be 
implemented early in their entirety, or by section (e.g., all of Sec.  
691.6 or all of Sec.  691.15), but not by paragraph, because related 
provisions (provisions within a section, at the very least) should be 
implemented contemporaneously. Moreover, because these final 
regulations replace transitional guidance that had been provided to 
institutions, institutions must make sure that any early implementation 
of the final regulations is consistent with the discussion in this 
document, notwithstanding the information provided in the transitional 
guidance the Department issued regarding the implementation of academic 
year progression for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 award years. 
Institutions must maintain documentation of the early implementation 
and must continue with the early implementation once it has been 
initiated.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to the Secretary's invitation in the NPRM published on 
August 7, 2007 (72 FR 44050), 52 parties submitted comments on the 
proposed regulations. An analysis of the comments and of the changes in 
the regulations since publication of the NPRM follows.
    We group major issues according to subject, with appropriate 
sections of the regulations referenced in parentheses. We discuss other 
substantive issues under the sections of the regulations to which they 
pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor 
changes--and suggested changes the law does not authorize the Secretary 
to make. We also do not address comments pertaining to issues that were 
not within the scope of the NPRM.

General Comments

    Several commenters stated that the ACG and National SMART Grant 
Programs are overly burdensome to implement. As noted in the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 section of this preamble, those comments relate 
to the basic structure of the program, as established in the HEA. While 
we cannot modify statutory program requirements through regulations, to 
the extent possible, we have tried to reduce the administrative burden 
associated with carrying out the statutory requirements governing the 
ACG and National SMART Grant Programs. We believe the final regulations 
are necessary to implement the statute.
    Two commenters expressed concern that the current definition of 
``eligible program'' in Sec.  691.2(d) excludes certificate programs as 
eligible programs under the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs. We 
believe this definition is necessary to implement the programs in 
accordance with the plain language of the statute. Moreover, we believe 
that this definition encourages students to pursue associate or 
bachelor degrees. Regardless of whether an institution offers both 
degree and certificate programs, a student is only eligible for an ACG 
or National SMART Grant if the student is confirmed as enrolled full-
time in the coursework of an ACG-eligible or National SMART Grant-
eligible program, respectively.
    We encourage institutions to counsel each student about the 
eligibility requirements for the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs, 
including the need to enroll in an ``eligible program,'' as defined in 
Sec.  691.2(d), early on. This counseling may include explaining that 
if the student transfers from an ineligible program to an eligible

[[Page 61250]]

program, the student may receive an ACG or National SMART Grant as long 
as he or she meets all other eligibility requirements.

Academic Year Progression (Sec.  691.6)

General
    Comments: Several commenters objected to using the Title IV, HEA 
definition of academic year, as measured in a minimum number of weeks 
of instructional time and, for undergraduate programs, credit or clock 
hours, for determining a student's academic year progression. The 
commenters supported determining academic year progression based solely 
on a student's grade level or credits earned. These commenters believed 
that using the Title IV, HEA definition of academic year for the ACG 
and National SMART Grant Programs was confusing, cumbersome, and 
administratively burdensome, and could lead to unintended errors.
    Discussion: While we appreciate the commenters' concerns, under 
section 401A(c)(3) of the HEA, a student is eligible for an ACG in the 
student's ``first academic year of a program of undergraduate 
education'' and ``second academic year of a program of undergraduate 
education,'' and for a National SMART Grant, in the ``third or fourth 
academic year of a program of undergraduate education.'' The term 
academic year is defined in section 481(a)(2) of the HEA, which applies 
to all Title IV, HEA programs, including the ACG and National SMART 
Grant Programs. We cannot interpret the term ``academic year'' in any 
way that would be contrary to the statutory requirements in section 
481(a)(2) of the HEA.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters questioned the relationship between an 
exact accounting of weeks of instructional time for a student's 
academic year progression under the proposed regulations and the 
alternatives for determining the weeks of instructional time provided 
in proposed Sec.  691.6(e), (f), (g), and (h) for programs that 
calculate payments under Sec.  691.63(b) and (c) (e.g., nonterm 
programs). Another commenter supported the flexibility offered by 
proposed Sec.  691.6(e), (f), (g), and (h), but indicated that the 
commenter's institution expected to retain its current policy of using 
the exact accounting method because it agrees that an exact accounting 
is most beneficial for students. One commenter believed that programs 
that do not calculate payments under Sec.  691.63(b) and (c) also could 
use the grade-level alternative under proposed Sec.  691.6(h) for 
determining students' weeks of instructional time. One commenter 
questioned whether transfer credits were subject to an exact 
accounting.
    Discussion: We consider an exact accounting of the credit or clock 
hours and weeks of instructional time to be the best method to 
determine any student's academic year progression because it is the 
most accurate. We further agree with the commenter who believed an 
exact accounting is more beneficial to students than estimating their 
academic year progression because it is the most accurate 
determination. We understand, however, that this better information 
places more administrative burden on an institution having to conduct 
an exact accounting for its students. The regulations, therefore, allow 
some flexibility for certain programs to use alternative methods to 
estimate a student's academic year progression. The alternative methods 
in Sec.  691.6(f), (g), and (h), which allow institutions to estimate 
the number of weeks of instructional time when determining academic 
year progression, may be used for certain eligible programs and must be 
used for transfer students.
    We are providing in Sec.  691.6(f), (g), and (h) alternative 
methods for determining weeks of instructional time for institutions 
calculating payments for programs under Sec.  691.63(b) and (c) because 
these institutions generally have not had to account precisely for the 
weeks of instructional time completed by individual students in order 
to be compliant with the Title IV, HEA academic year for Title IV 
purposes. The alternatives are based on specified criteria that will 
provide consistent measures for students enrolled in those programs 
while providing a less burdensome way for institutions to estimate 
academic year progression.
    In contrast, institutions that calculate payments for eligible 
programs under Sec.  691.63(d) and (e) must account for the actual 
number of weeks a student attends classes in their academic year 
progression calculations under Title IV, HEA. Using an exact accounting 
of credit or clock hours and weeks of instructional time to determine 
academic year progression (apart from determining weeks of 
instructional time for transfer credits) is, therefore, the only 
appropriate option for these institutions under the HEA. For this 
reason, we do not provide the alternatives under proposed Sec.  
691.6(e), (f), (g), and (h) for determining weeks of instructional time 
for these eligible programs.
    For transfer students, because the proposed changes to Sec.  
691.6(a), (b), and (c) require an institution to determine a student's 
academic year progression based on the student's attendance in all ACG 
and National SMART Grant eligible programs only at the institution in 
which the student is currently enrolled, an institution is no longer 
required to do an exact accounting of a student's academic year 
progression at all institutions. Therefore, when determining the 
appropriate academic year for a transfer student under Sec.  
691.6(d)(3), the institution to which the student transferred must 
count the number of credit or clock hours earned by the student at 
prior institutions that are accepted toward the student's ACG-or 
National SMART Grant-eligible program, and estimate the number of weeks 
of instructional time completed by the student.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Many commenters believed that the proposed regulations 
should be revised to incorporate, for the 2008-2009 and subsequent 
award years, the transitional guidance the Department issued regarding 
the implementation of academic year progression for the 2006-2007 and 
2007-2008 award years, including the guidance we provided in Dear 
Colleague letter GEN-06-18. This transitional guidance permitted 
programs eligible to calculate payments under Sec.  691.63(b) and (c) 
to make certain assumptions when determining a student's academic year 
progression for ACG and National SMART Grant eligibility. The guidance 
also covered the treatment of transfer students, the extension of the 
fourth academic year for National SMART Grant eligibility, and the 
second academic year of associate degree programs for ACG eligibility. 
The common theme in the comments that mentioned the Department's 
transitional guidance was that the guidance provided institutions with 
more flexibilities in administering the ACG and National SMART Grant 
Programs than is available under the proposed regulations, and that 
these flexibilities provided significant burden relief and assisted 
them in addressing particular students' circumstances.
    Discussion: Following the creation of the ACG and National SMART 
Grant Programs and based on the need to implement the programs quickly, 
the Department determined that it was appropriate to provide 
transitional guidance to relieve administrative burden on institutions 
during the two initial award years of implementation of

[[Page 61251]]

the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs. The relief provided in the 
transitional guidance mostly related to the treatment of transfer 
students for these programs and to determining weeks of instructional 
time completed at traditional academic calendar institutions. The 
flexibilities provided in the transitional guidance were intended to 
ease the transition for institutions as they established procedures for 
these new programs. The negotiated rulemaking proceeding for these 
regulations gave the participants time to address these issues in more 
detail, and these regulations put in place modified requirements for 
institutions to use to administer the ACG and National SMART Grant 
programs on an ongoing basis.
    In addition, the extensions of fourth-academic-year National SMART 
Grant eligibility and second-academic-year of associate degree programs 
for ACG eligibility are no longer needed because all students now have 
an opportunity to qualify for awards during the appropriate academic 
year. Starting with the 2008-2009 award year, institutions will be 
required to comply fully with the HEA provisions for the ACG and 
National SMART Grant Program and these final regulations.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters requested guidance on how to determine an 
individual student's academic year progression when the student's 
progression has been based on the Department's transitional guidance 
for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 award years and the student's academic 
year level is changed by the implementation of these final regulations 
in 2008-2009. One commenter suggested that, if we are unable to 
incorporate the transitional guidance into the final regulations, we 
should at least ``grandfather'' the transitional guidance for 
continuing students who may otherwise regress in applicable academic 
years.
    Discussion: For 2008-2009 and subsequent award years, an 
institution must determine a student's academic year progression in 
accordance with the HEA provisions for the ACG and National SMART Grant 
Programs and these final regulations. We believe that this new 
framework may delay awards for some students until they progress to the 
point they were previously deemed to have reached, but most of these 
students will still be eligible to receive the same amount of grant 
funds from that point forward. A student who received a third-academic-
year National SMART Grant Scheduled Award in the 2007-2008 award year 
under the transitional guidance may, for example, now be considered to 
be in the second academic year in his or her National SMART Grant-
eligible program in the 2008-2009 award year. That student would no 
longer be eligible for a National SMART Grant until the student enrolls 
in the fourth academic year of his or her National SMART Grant eligible 
program. In this example, the student has already received a third-year 
National SMART Grant award; thus the student may not be paid for any 
remaining eligibility for a second-year ACG award, even if otherwise 
eligible, because the student is presumed to have completed an ACG-
eligible program through the second academic year at that same 
institution in order to qualify for the third-year award the student 
previously received. Because a student who has completed an ACG-
eligible program through the second academic year is not eligible for a 
second-year ACG award, the student in the example is not eligible for a 
second-year ACG award.
    Note, however, that the outcome of this example would be different 
if the student received the third-academic-year National SMART Grant 
award at another institution and then, upon transfer, was classified as 
being in his or her second academic year. If this transfer student were 
otherwise eligible, the student may receive any second-academic-year 
ACG Scheduled Award not already received at the prior institution 
because, under Sec.  691.6(a), (b), and (c), academic year progression 
only takes into account attendance at the transfer student's current 
institution.
    We do not believe it is necessary to ``grandfather'' the 
transitional guidance for continuing students because they generally 
will have the opportunity to progress to the academic year level they 
would otherwise be at under the transitional guidance.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the relationship 
of academic year progression to the Scheduled Award. The commenter 
questioned whether an otherwise eligible student who receives a 
Scheduled Award within an award year and progresses to the next 
academic year within the same award year would be eligible to receive 
another ACG or National SMART Grant for the next academic year in that 
award year.
    Discussion: An ACG or National SMART Grant Scheduled Award is the 
amount a full-time student would be paid for a full academic year 
without respect to any award year. Unlike the Federal Pell Grant 
Program in which a student starts a new Scheduled Award with each new 
award year, a student receiving an ACG or National SMART Grant 
Scheduled Award starts a new Scheduled Award when the student starts a 
new academic year without reference to whether a new award year has 
commenced. For example, a program is offered in quarters with 10 weeks 
of instructional time and the academic year is defined as 36 credit 
hours and 30 weeks of instructional time. An eligible student in this 
program attends the quarters beginning in July, October, and January in 
the 2007-2008 award year and receives a first-academic-year ACG 
Scheduled Award over those three quarters. The student then continues 
into the quarter that begins in April and ends in June, which is prior 
to the next award year, and at the start of that quarter the student 
meets the eligibility requirements to receive a second-academic-year 
ACG Scheduled Award. In this example, the student would receive a 
payment from the second-year Scheduled Award for the quarter beginning 
in April. If the student continues to be eligible for a second-
academic-year Scheduled Award in the quarters beginning in July and 
October of the 2008-2009 award year, the student would receive the 
second and third disbursements of the second-academic-year Scheduled 
Award during those quarters.
    Changes: None.

Academic Year Progression (Sec.  691.6(a), (b), and (c))

    Comments: Several commenters supported the changes reflected in 
proposed Sec.  691.6(a), (b), and (c), which require an institution to 
determine a student's academic year progression based on the student's 
attendance in all ACG and National SMART Grant eligible programs only 
at the institution in which the student is currently enrolled. The 
commenters believed that the proposed changes would reduce burden and 
provide some needed flexibilities.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters questioned the effect changing eligible 
programs would have on a student's academic year progression under the 
proposed regulations. One commenter believed that the proposed 
regulations would prohibit a student from being eligible for an award 
at an academic year level below the academic year level of any award 
the student had received at a prior institution. Another commenter 
believed that the regulations should provide that only credits that 
apply directly to a student's eligible

[[Page 61252]]

program should be considered in determining a student's academic year 
progression, without taking into account an institution's general 
academic policies regarding degree audits.
    Discussion: In general, under these regulations, an institution 
must follow a student's academic year progression in all ACG- and 
National SMART Grant-eligible programs attended by the student at that 
institution. The receipt of ACGs or National SMART Grants at other 
institutions would not affect the student's academic year progression 
at the current institution, as is discussed further in the next 
section, Transfer Students (Sec.  691.6(d)(3)).
    Under these regulations, a student's academic year progression must 
take into account (a) the credit or clock hours, including transferred 
hours, credited toward, for ACGs, ACG-eligible programs, and, for 
National SMART Grants, National SMART Grant-eligible programs at the 
student's current institution; and (b) the weeks of instructional time 
earned while enrolled in, for ACGs, ACG-eligible programs, and, for 
National SMART Grants, ACG- and National SMART Grant-eligible programs 
at the student's current institution, including any estimated weeks 
based on transferred hours. For example, a student completes his or her 
first academic year in weeks of instructional time and credit hours as 
a part-time student while enrolled in a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree 
program at an institution. At the end of the first academic year, the 
student transfers to the same institution's school of architecture to 
enroll full-time in the Bachelor of Architecture degree program. The 
student is still considered to have completed a first academic year at 
the institution for purposes of receiving an ACG. The student would be 
considered to be entering his or her second academic year in an ACG-
eligible program at the institution by continuing in the Bachelor of 
Architecture without reference to the number of credits applicable to 
that degree from the Bachelor of Fine Arts degree program. A student 
moving between National SMART Grant-eligible programs would be treated 
similarly.
    The ACG and National SMART Grant Programs have different 
eligibility requirements because National SMART Grants are only 
available for qualified students who are progressing in a designated 
major in a National SMART Grant-eligible program. A student's 
attendance in ACG-eligible programs will only count for the credit-or 
clock-hour component of academic year progression for National SMART 
Grants if the credit or clock hours earned while in an ACG-eligible 
program are applicable to the National SMART Grant eligible program. 
For the weeks-of-instructional-time component, under Sec.  
691.6(d)(2)(ii), a student is considered to have accrued weeks of 
instructional time in a National SMART Grant-eligible program while the 
student was enrolled in ACG-eligible programs.
    In determining a student's academic year progression, an 
institution must always take into consideration only those credit or 
clock hours applicable to the student's attendance in, for ACGs, ACG-
eligible programs, and for National SMART Grants, National SMART Grant-
eligible programs. In making these determinations, an institution may 
follow its general academic policies regarding degree audits. For 
example, an institution may consider all credits to be generally 
applicable to a student's bachelor's degree program under its academic 
policies until such time as it performs a degree audit or otherwise 
performs an exact accounting of a student's academic year progression.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked at what point in time would an 
institution determine whether a student is enrolled in a National SMART 
Grant-eligible program for the purpose of determining that student's 
academic year progression for a National SMART Grant. The commenter 
noted that, for National SMART Grant purposes, an eligible program is 
defined as one that leads to a bachelor's degree in a National SMART 
Grant-eligible major. The commenter questioned whether a student is 
considered to be enrolled in a National SMART Grant-eligible program 
(1) only if he or she has declared or intends to declare a National 
SMART Grant eligible major, or (2) as long as an eligible major is 
offered within that program.
    Discussion: A student's eligibility for a National SMART Grant is 
based upon his or her pursuit of an eligible major. A student 
demonstrates this pursuit by declaring an eligible major or 
demonstrating his or her intent to declare an eligible major. 
Accordingly, under Sec.  691.6(d)(2)(ii), a student may be considered 
to be enrolled in a National SMART Grant-eligible program only if the 
student has declared a National SMART Grant-eligible major, or 
demonstrated his or her intent to declare an eligible major, in 
accordance with Sec.  691.15(c)(2).
    Changes: None.

Transfer Student (Sec.  691.6(d)(3))

    Comments: Several commenters supported the requirement in proposed 
Sec.  691.6(d)(3) that, when determining the appropriate academic year 
for a transfer student, the institution to which the student 
transferred must count the number of credit or clock hours earned by 
the student at prior institutions that are accepted into the student's 
ACG-or National SMART Grant-eligible program, and estimate the number 
of weeks of instructional time completed by the student as determined 
by a formula provided in the proposed regulations.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters objected to excluding the types of credit 
or clock hours described in proposed Sec.  691.6(d)(2) when assigning 
weeks of instructional time for the purpose of calculating academic 
year progression. In particular, commenters believed it would be 
difficult for institutions to know whether the transferred credit or 
clock hours were earned in an ACG- or National SMART Grant-eligible 
program. One commenter was concerned that, in order to comply with the 
proposed regulations, an institution would need to collect 
documentation and perform evaluations beyond those normally required 
for transfer of credit or clock hours to determine whether the credit 
or clock hours would have associated estimated weeks of instructional 
time. Two commenters believed that, under the proposed regulations, an 
institution would be required to perform an exact accounting of weeks 
of instructional time for transfer credits and believed this 
requirement would be difficult to implement if the institution were 
using one of the alternative methods of determining weeks of 
instructional time under proposed Sec.  691.6(e), (f), (g), and (h). 
These commenters also questioned whether a student could request an 
exact accounting of weeks of instructional time for the transferred 
credit or clock hours, what the appropriate treatment would be for 
credit or clock hours earned in summer courses at other institutions 
without a written agreement between institutions, and what the 
appropriate treatment would be for the late receipt of credit or clock 
hours on transfer by an institution at a time subsequent to a student's 
initial enrollment at that institution. One commenter questioned 
whether the prior receipt of ACGs or National SMART Grants affected a 
student's academic year progression at a student's current institution.
    Discussion: We recognize the difficulty of determining whether 
credit or clock hours accepted on transfer should be excluded from an 
institution's

[[Page 61253]]

calculation of weeks of instructional time under Sec.  691.6(d)(2). 
Nonetheless, institutions must determine a student's eligibility for 
the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs and, for transfer students, 
an institution is responsible for determining the credit or clock hours 
accepted on transfer that apply to a student's ACG- or National SMART 
Grant-eligible program and estimating the number of weeks of 
instructional time associated with those hours. With respect to the 
exclusions identified in Sec.  691.6(d)(2) and the treatment of 
transfer students, an institution may rely on the documentation it 
normally collects from incoming transfer students to evaluate transfer 
credits. An institution is not required to collect additional 
documentation, and, unless the institution has information to the 
contrary, may consider all credit or clock hours accepted on transfer 
as having been earned while enrolled in an ACG- and National SMART 
Grant-eligible program. Correspondingly, if an institution has 
information indicating that the transferred credit or clock hours fall 
into one of the exclusions in Sec.  691.6(d)(2), it must exclude those 
from its calculation of weeks of instructional time for the transferred 
student.
    Under Sec.  691.6(d)(3), an institution would never perform an 
exact accounting of weeks of instructional time for transfer credits 
but would estimate the number of weeks of instructional time completed 
by a transfer student. Under the regulations, for transfer students, 
the estimated number of weeks of instructional time must correspond to 
the credit or clock hours accepted in the same ratio as the weeks of 
instructional time in the eligible program's academic year is to the 
credit or clock hours in the academic year of the student's ACG- or 
National SMART Grant-eligible program.
    For a student who transfers credit or clock hours into an ACG- or 
National SMART Grant-eligible program from attending a summer term at 
another institution or for whom the current institution receives credit 
or clock hours subsequent to the student's initial enrollment, the 
institution would estimate the number of weeks of instructional time 
completed by the student in the same manner as for all other 
transferred credit or clock hours.
    As previously addressed under Academic Year Progression (Sec.  
691.6(a), (b), and (c)), a student's prior receipt of ACG or National 
SMART Grant awards at other institutions does not affect a student's 
academic year progression at his or her current institution, but the 
student cannot receive a duplicate award for the same academic year at 
the second institution. The current institution may only evaluate the 
credits accepted on transfer into the student's ACG- or National SMART 
Grant-eligible program in determining the student's academic year 
progression. While the receipt of ACGs and National SMART Grants at 
other institutions does not affect a student's academic year 
progression at his or her current institution, the current institution 
must always ensure that, in accordance with section 401A(d)(2)(B) of 
the HEA, an eligible student only receives one ACG for each of the 
first two academic years of an undergraduate program and one National 
SMART Grant for each of the third and fourth academic years of a 
bachelor's degree program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked whether an institution that uses the 
grade-level alternative under Sec.  691.6(h) would be required to 
determine the academic years completed by a transfer student in 
accordance with proposed Sec.  691.6(d)(3) or whether the institution 
would do so by applying the credit hours the institution accepts on 
transfer toward the student's grade level in accordance with proposed 
Sec.  691.6(h).
    Discussion: We believe the commenter has identified a situation 
where it would be inappropriate to calculate a student's weeks of 
instructional time in accordance with proposed Sec.  691.6(d)(3). 
Because the grade-level alternative method to determining weeks of 
instructional time under proposed Sec.  691.6(h) is driven by the 
credit hours accrued by the student, including transfer credits, the 
requirements for determining academic year progression for transfer 
students in proposed Sec.  691.6(d)(3) would not apply when an 
institution uses the alternative method in proposed Sec.  691.6(h).
    Changes: We have revised proposed Sec.  691.6(d)(3) to provide 
that, for an eligible program for which an institution determines 
estimated weeks of instructional time based on grade level under Sec.  
691.6(h), the institution must include the credit hours accepted on 
transfer into a student's eligible program when determining the 
student's grade level in accordance with Sec.  691.6(d)(2) and (h).
    Comment: One commenter asked whether proposed Sec.  691.6(d)(3) 
would apply only to eligible programs subject to a particular payment 
formula under Sec.  691.63 or to all eligible programs.
    Discussion: Proposed Sec.  691.6(d)(3) applies to all eligible 
programs.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter questioned whether the determination of the 
estimated weeks of instructional time for transferred credit or clock 
hours for a transfer student would apply only upon enrollment at the 
current institution and not for subsequent evaluations of a student's 
academic year progression. For example, the commenter questioned 
whether the transferred hours would be incorporated in determining the 
weeks of instructional time under the alternative methods provided in 
Sec.  691.6(g) and (h), based on credits and grade level, respectively.
    Discussion: The alternative methods of estimating weeks of 
instructional time provided in Sec.  691.6(f), (g), and (h), along with 
an exact accounting of weeks of instructional time, apply only to 
attendance at the current institution. A transfer student's estimated 
weeks of instructional time, as calculated in accordance with Sec.  
691.6(d)(3), would be added to the weeks of instructional time the 
student accrues at the current institution, as determined based on an 
exact accounting or in accordance with Sec.  691.6(f) or (g). It is 
unnecessary to estimate the weeks of instructional time under Sec.  
691.6(d)(3) when using the alternative method described in Sec.  
691.6(h). The methodology for estimating weeks of instructional time 
under Sec.  691.6(g) is the same as that in Sec.  691.6(d)(3), so it 
may appear that proposed Sec.  691.6(g) applies to transfer credits.
    If the estimated weeks of instructional time for credit or clock 
hours accepted on transfer are applicable to a first or second academic 
year in an ACG-eligible program, institutions are reminded that, under 
Sec.  691.6(d)(2)(ii), those estimated weeks of instructional time 
would apply toward National SMART Grant academic year progression 
regardless of whether the credit or clock hours were earned while the 
student was enrolled in a National SMART Grant-eligible program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter questioned whether the provisions of 
proposed Sec.  691.6(d)(3) would apply to a student attending more than 
one eligible institution under a written agreement, both during the 
period covered by the agreement and upon returning to the home 
institution.
    Discussion: To the extent the home institution is calculating the 
student's payments for payment periods under its academic calendar, 
including the credit or clock hours being earned at another eligible 
institution, the provisions of Sec.  691.6(d)(3) would not apply 
because the student would not be transferring these credits or clock 
hours. However, if the home institution does not calculate

[[Page 61254]]

the student's payment for a payment period, the credit or clock hours 
would be treated as transfer credit or clock hours and would be subject 
to the provisions of Sec.  691.6(d)(3).
    Changes: None.

Alternative Methods for Determining Weeks of Instructional Time (Sec.  
691.6(e), (f), (g), and (h))

    Comments: Several commenters supported proposed Sec.  691.6(e), 
(f), (g), and (h), which would provide three alternative methods for 
determining the weeks of instructional time for a student's academic 
year progression in eligible programs for which payments are determined 
under Sec.  691.63(b) and (c). The alternative method in Sec.  691.6(f) 
counts weeks of instructional time based on the number of terms the 
student has attended (terms-attended alternative). The alternative 
method in Sec.  691.6(g) attributes weeks of instructional time to the 
credit hours earned by the student (credits-earned alternative). The 
alternative method in Sec.  691.6(g) uses student's grade level as a 
basis for determining weeks of instructional time completed (grade-
level alternative). An extensive discussion of these alternatives is 
found in the preamble of the NPRM (see 72 FR 44053-44054).
    Several commenters objected to the applicability of proposed Sec.  
691.6(d)(2), under the credits-earned and grade-level alternative 
methods reflected in proposed Sec.  691.6(g) and (h), respectively, 
because of the types of credits that are not counted under those 
methods. Proposed Sec.  691.6(d)(2) would not permit an institution to 
allocate weeks of instructional time to certain credits that were not 
earned at postsecondary institutions or as part of an ACG- or National 
SMART Grant-eligible program.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support and concerns. 
However, proposed Sec.  691.6(d)(2) is designed to work with the 
alternative methods in Sec.  691.6(f), (g), and (h), so that a 
student's academic year progression consistently excludes credits that 
do not have weeks of instructional time in an ACG- or National SMART 
Grant-eligible program associated with them.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter was concerned that proposed Sec.  
691.6(e)(2)(i) allows only institutions that determine payments for the 
student's eligible program under Sec.  691.63(b) or (c) to use any of 
the three alternatives under proposed Sec.  691.6(f), (g), and (h). The 
commenter noted that a similar restriction is stated in proposed Sec.  
691.6(f)(1) and (g)(1), but that these paragraphs use the language 
``may determine payments'' under Sec.  691.63(b) or (c) rather than 
``uses'' those payment formulas. In addition, the commenter notes that 
the restriction is not repeated in any form in proposed Sec.  691.6(h).
    Discussion: These alternative methods of estimating weeks of 
instructional time only apply to programs for which payments are 
calculated under Sec.  691.63(b) or (c) because institutions using 
these payment methods are not required to account directly for the 
weeks of instructional time when calculating payments for their 
programs. If a program were eligible for payment calculations under 
Sec.  691.63(b) or (c) but, in fact, calculated payments under Sec.  
691.63(d), the institution would be required to accurately determine 
the weeks of instructional time attended by the student when making 
payment calculations, and it would be inappropriate to provide these 
three alternatives.
    Changes: We have revised proposed Sec.  691.6(f)(1) and (g)(1) by 
replacing the words ``may determine'' with the word ``determines'' in 
order to make these provisions consistent with proposed Sec.  
691.6(e)(2)(i). We have also revised Sec.  691.6(h) to make it 
consistent with these other provisions.
    Comments: One commenter requested clarification on whether an 
institution must use only one alternative for all students in a program 
unless an exception is made to use an exact accounting for a given 
student. The commenter also questioned whether an institution is 
required to document the basis for its determination to use an 
alternative method or an exact accounting.
    Discussion: As provided under proposed Sec.  691.6(e)(2)(ii), an 
institution must use the same alternative method for all students in an 
eligible program unless the institution performs an exact accounting, 
either on its own initiative or upon a student's request. While an 
institution must document whether it has used an alternative method or 
exact accounting to determine a student's weeks of instructional time, 
it is not required to document the basis for its decision.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter questioned whether, in using an alternative 
method of determining weeks of instructional time, an institution might 
identify specific groups of students in the eligible program for whom 
it would always perform an exact accounting. For example, an 
institution might use the grade-level alternative but perform an exact 
accounting for all students with AP or IB credits.
    Discussion: We believe that an institution should use the same 
alternative for determining weeks of instructional time for students in 
a program except when the institution initiates or performs, pursuant 
to a student's request, an exact accounting of weeks of instructional 
time. Accordingly, we believe it would be appropriate for an 
institution to identify a group or groups of students in the eligible 
program for whom it would always perform an exact accounting and then 
to use the same alternative method for determining the weeks of 
instructional time for all other students in the eligible program.
    Changes: We have clarified in Sec.  691.6(e)(2)(ii) that 
institutions must use the same alternative method for determining weeks 
of instructional time for all students enrolled in the eligible program 
for whom an exact accounting is not performed.
    Comments: One commenter questioned how the application of the 
alternative methods described in Sec.  691.6(f), (g), and (h) would be 
affected by a student attending some classes offered in an academic 
calendar outside the one offered by the student's eligible program or 
classes offered as part of intersessions between semesters that may be 
treated as part of a semester to qualify for payment calculations under 
Sec.  691.63(b) or (c).
    Discussion: We believe these situations would have little impact on 
how an institution would apply the alternative methods described in 
Sec.  691.6(f), (g), and (h). A student taking some courses outside the 
academic calendar of his or her eligible program would still have 
payments calculated based on the eligible program's calendar and the 
courses would be considered to fall within the eligible program's 
calendar. Intersessions treated as part of a semester would be 
similarly considered to fall within a semester in the eligible 
program's calendar for purposes of these alternative methods.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter asked for clarification regarding the 
impact of using the grade-level alternative under proposed Sec.  
691.6(h) when an institution is required to remove from consideration 
credits that are not associated with weeks of instructional time under 
proposed Sec.  691.6(d)(2). The commenter questioned the relationship 
of credits with which no weeks of instructional time are associated 
(e.g., AP credits) to the formula in proposed Sec.  691.6(h)(3) for 
determining whether an institution may use the grade-level

[[Page 61255]]

alternative. The commenter further questioned whether an institution 
that qualifies to use the grade-level alternative based on an 
institution-wide analysis, rather than a program-level analysis under 
Sec.  691.6(h)(3), must use the grade-level alternative for all of its 
eligible programs.
    Discussion: Under proposed Sec.  691.6(d)(2), an institution must 
exclude credits without weeks of instructional time in determining a 
student's grade level for purposes of proposed Sec.  691.6(h)(2) when 
it determines the student's academic year progression. The formula in 
Sec.  691.6(h)(3) applies only to full-time, full-year students during 
periods of enrollment in ACG- and National SMART Grant-eligible 
programs at the institution. To take into consideration credits without 
weeks in applying the formula in Sec.  691.6(h)(3) would distort the 
academic year progression for those students.
    If an institution uses an institution-wide analysis under the 
grade-level alternative, it must use the grade-level alternative for 
all of its ACG- and National SMART Grant-eligible programs. We believe 
that Sec.  691.6(h)(3) should be changed to clarify this requirement.
    Changes: We have added paragraph (h)(2)(iii) to Sec.  691.6 to 
clarify that an institution that makes a determination under paragraph 
(h)(2)(i) of that section on an institutional basis must use the grade-
level alternative method for all students at the institution for whom 
it does not perform an exact accounting of weeks of instructional time 
completed. We also have amended Sec.  691.6(e)(2) to reference this 
requirement.
    Comments: Several commenters supported continuing guidance similar 
to the transitional guidance for 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 that an 
institution may use one of the alternative methods or do an exact 
accounting to determine weeks of instructional time on a case-by-case 
basis without any restriction. Commenters also believed that the case-
by-case determinations should include going from exact accounting back 
to using one of the alternative methods. The commenters believed that 
this type of flexibility would assist them in ensuring that students 
would more fully benefit under the ACG and National SMART Grant 
Programs.
    Discussion: The alternative methods of determining academic year 
progression are provided for programs for which institutions do not 
generally track the exact number of weeks of instructional time 
attended by students. We believe that the alternative methods would not 
ensure the accurate determination of a student's academic year 
progression if institutions were permitted to use the alternatives on a 
case-by-case basis as suggested by the commenters.
    We do not believe it is appropriate for a student's academic year 
progression to be determined under one of the alternative methods once 
an institution implements an exact accounting for that student. We 
consider an exact accounting of the weeks of instructional time 
completed by a student to always be the best evaluation of that 
student's academic year standing when determining the student's 
eligibility for an ACG or National SMART Grant.
    Changes: None.

Limitations on Determining Weeks of Instructional Time (Sec.  
691.6(d)(2))

    Comments: Many commenters objected to the restrictions in proposed 
Sec.  691.6(d)(2) that an institution may not assign any weeks of 
instructional time to credit or clock hours accepted toward meeting a 
student's eligible program if the student earned (a) the credit or 
clock hours from Advanced Placement (AP) programs, International 
Baccalaureate (IB) programs, testing out, life experience, or other 
similar competency measures, (b) the credit or clock hours while not 
enrolled as a regular student in an ACG or National SMART Grant 
eligible program, or (c) the credit or clock hours for coursework that 
is not at the postsecondary level, such as remedial coursework. The 
commenters believed that these restrictions should be eliminated 
because they result in significant burden on institutions implementing 
these programs, require manual reviews of student records, reduce 
institutional flexibility, penalize students, and are inconsistent with 
the requirements of the other Title IV, HEA programs. The commenters 
generally believed that no credit or clock hours credited toward a 
student's eligible program should be excluded from estimating a 
student's academic progression in weeks of instructional time.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns and acknowledge 
the burden associated with calculating a student's weeks of 
instructional time under this framework. However, we believe it is 
important not to allocate weeks of instructional time to credits not 
earned at the postsecondary level in order to be consistent with the 
statute and to preserve maximum grant eligibility for these students. 
Students earn the credits described in Sec.  691.6(d)(2)(i)(A) through 
(C) while not enrolled in an ACG- or National SMART Grant-eligible 
program, and, therefore, we believe that it would not be appropriate 
for these credits to have weeks of instructional time in an ACG- or 
National SMART Grant-eligible program associated with them. Moreover, 
we believe that Sec.  691.6(d)(2)(i) is necessary to ensure that an 
institution accurately determines a student's academic year progression 
in his or her ACG or National SMART Grant eligible program.
    Changes: None.

Exact Accounting; Student Request To Determine Academic Year Level 
(Sec.  691.6(e))

    Comments: Several commenters believed that only an institution 
should initiate an exact accounting of a student's academic year 
progression. One commenter indicated that requiring institutions to 
perform an exact accounting upon a student request would be burdensome. 
Another did not believe students appreciated the distinctions in aid 
eligibility that may result from an exact accounting.
    Discussion: We continue to consider an exact calculation of the 
weeks of instructional time completed by a student to always be the 
best evaluation of that student's academic year standing when 
determining the student's eligibility for an ACG or National SMART 
Grant, and we believe a student should always have this option 
available. However, we believe that institutions may counsel a student 
on the implications of initiating an exact accounting so that the 
student will understand all available options and that, in some 
circumstances, an exact calculation could reduce or delay the aid a 
student might receive under the estimate otherwise used by the 
institution.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter questioned the meaning of the phrase 
``including an accounting pursuant to paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this 
section'' in proposed Sec.  691.6(e)(3).
    Discussion: The reference to paragraph (e)(2)(ii) was an error; the 
proper reference is to paragraph (e)(2)(iii).
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  691.6(e)(3) to reference paragraph 
(e)(2)(iii).
    Comments: Several commenters believed that proposed Sec.  
691.6(e)(2)(iii) provided that only a student could initiate an exact 
accounting of academic year progression and questioned whether an 
institution may initiate an exact accounting. One commenter asked what 
we meant, in proposed Sec.  691.6(e)(3), when we used the word 
``initiates.''

[[Page 61256]]

    Discussion: While a student has a right to request that an 
institution perform an exact accounting of his or her weeks of 
instructional time, an institution can always choose to perform an 
exact accounting of a student's weeks of instructional time pursuant to 
Sec.  691.6(e)(3). An institution is considered to have ``initiated'' 
an exact accounting under proposed Sec.  691.6(e)(3) when the 
institution performs an exact accounting.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter questioned whether using an exact accounting 
for a student would apply to the student even after transfer to another 
institution.
    Discussion: The requirement that a student is always subject to an 
exact accounting once one has been performed applies only to the 
student's current institution. If the student transfers to another 
institution, the new institution could, after accepting the prior 
courses under the transfer procedures, determine the student's academic 
year progression for courses taken at the new institution based on an 
exact accounting or any of the alternative methods for determining 
weeks of instructional time for the student in Sec.  691.6, provided 
that the institution otherwise meets the requirements to use the 
alternative method selected.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter was concerned that neither an institution 
nor a student would have the benefit of understanding the implications 
of choosing an exact accounting over an alternative method (or vice 
versa) before committing to an exact accounting.
    Discussion: The institution may counsel the student on whether to 
ask for the exact accounting, but must use that information if the 
calculation is made. An exact accounting provides the most accurate 
determination of a student's eligibility. The alternative methods have 
been adopted to ease the administrative burdens on institutions, rather 
than to provide students with the opportunity to receive grants they 
would not be entitled to under an exact accounting.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter had several questions relating to whether 
an exact accounting of a student's academic year progression would 
always preempt the use of the alternative methods for calculating weeks 
of instructional time under proposed Sec.  691.6(f), (g), and (h). 
First, the commenter questioned whether the decision to conduct an 
exact accounting would apply only to the payment period in which the 
exact accounting was conducted or to all subsequent payment periods, as 
well. The commenter also questioned whether it mattered for future 
determinations that an exact accounting was initiated by the 
institution or at the request of the student. Finally, the commenter 
questioned whether a student would be able to rescind his or her 
request.
    Discussion: An exact accounting is the best measure of a student's 
academic year progression, and an institution must continue to use that 
information in all subsequent payment periods during the student's 
enrollment at that institution. No distinction exists for calculations 
requested by a student or initiated by the institution, and a student 
may not rescind his or her request for an exact accounting once it is 
made.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter indicated that, because the commenter's 
institution was unable to automate an exact accounting of a student's 
academic year progression, the institution would be unable to perform 
an exact accounting.
    Discussion: When requested by a student, an institution is 
responsible for performing exact accountings of academic year 
progression regardless of whether its information systems would allow 
the process to be automated. Institutions are expected to perform these 
calculations manually in these circumstances.
    Changes: None.

Academic Year Progression and Grade Point Average (GPA)

    Comments: Several commenters questioned the effect changes in 
determinations of student's academic year progression would have on the 
student's relevant GPA. Two commenters noted that, with the termination 
of the transitional guidance for the 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 award 
years, institutions would no longer count weeks of instructional time 
for some students and this would result in continuing students 
regressing in academic year progre