[Federal Register: November 1, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 212)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65661-65676]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no00-23]
[[Page 65661]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IX
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Parts 600, 668, 675, and 690
Institutional Eligibility; Student Assistance General Provisions;
Federal Work-Study Programs; and the Federal Pell Grant Program; Final
Rule
[[Page 65662]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 600, 668, 675, and 690
RIN 1845-AA19
Institutional Eligibility; Student Assistance General Provisions;
Federal Work-Study Programs; and the Federal Pell Grant Program
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the Institutional Eligibility, the
Student Assistance General Provisions, the Federal Work-Study (FWS)
Programs, and the Federal Pell Grant Program regulations. These final
regulations implement changes negotiated under the negotiated
rulemaking process mandated by Congress under section 492 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, (HEA). These changes streamline the
application, reapplication, and certification processes for
institutions that wish to participate in the title IV, HEA programs and
provide simplification and flexibility in other provisions of the
regulations that apply to the title IV HEA programs.
DATES: Effective Date: These regulations are effective July 1, 2001.
Implementation Date: The Secretary has determined, in accordance
with section 482(c)(2)(A) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1089(c)(2)(A)), that
institutions that administer title IV, HEA program funds may, at their
discretion, choose to implement Secs. 600.31, 668.5 and 675.19 on or
after November 1, 2000. For further information see ``Implementation
Date of These Regulations'' under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Washington, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 3045, ROB-3, Washington, DC
20202-5447. Telephone: (202) 260-9321.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 10, 2000 the Secretary published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Institutional Eligibility,
Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Work-Study Programs
(FWS), Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, William D. Ford
Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program; and the Federal Pell Grant Program,
in the Federal Register (65 FR 49134).
In the preamble to the NPRM, the Secretary discussed on pages 49135
through 49147 the major changes proposed in that document. These
included the following:
Revising Secs. 600.20 and 600.21, amending Secs. 600.10
and 600.31, and removing Secs. 600.9 and 600.30 to streamline the
application, reapplication and certification processes for institutions
that wish to participate in the title IV, HEA programs (pages 49149-
49152).
Revising Sec. 600.31 to clarify the reporting
responsibilities for institutions that undergo a change of ownership
that results in change of control (pages 49151-49152).
Revising Sec. 668.5 to expand the possibilities for
institutions to create written agreements with certain other entities
to have part or all of their eligible programs provided by those
entities (pages 49152-49153).
Adding flexibility in Sec. 668.13 to the training
requirements for institutional certification (page 49153).
Revising in Sec. 668.19 the process for obtaining a
transfer student's financial aid history (page 49153).
Revising Sec. 675.19 to permit additional certification
and record retention options for FWS program administration (pages
49153-49154).
Providing in Secs. 682.604 and 685.301 additional
flexibility in the loan disbursement rules for students enrolled in
non-traditional programs (page 49154).
Clarifying in Sec. 668.165 the notification requirements
when title IV loan proceeds are credited to a student's institutional
account (page 49154).
Adding flexibility in Sec. 682.207 to lender disbursement
requirements and eligibility determinations for students receiving loan
proceeds under the FFEL Program (page 49154).
In these final regulations, we make two significant changes from
the regulations that we proposed in the NPRM published on August 10,
2000. First, we will require all institutions to report to us of their
intent to add a location offering 50 percent or more of an eligible
program, regardless of the type of institution. A small number of
institutions--those that meet one or more of the specified conditions
discussed later in the analysis of comments--will have to await our
approval of the new location before disbursing title IV, HEA program
funds to students at that location. Other institutions must report to
us their intent to add additional locations, but are not required to
wait for our approval of those locations.
Second, public institutions must report changes in governance to us
within 10 days of their occurrence.
The Secretary published an NPRM on July 27, 2000, for parts 682 and
685 in the Federal Register (65 FR 46316). In the preamble to that
NPRM, the Secretary discussed (on pages 46317-46320) proposed changes
to the FFEL and Direct Loan regulations. In order to consolidate the
final regulations for the FFEL and Direct Loan programs into a single
Federal Register publication, those proposed provisions of parts 682
and 685 that were published in the August 10, 2000 NPRM are now
included as a part of the final regulations that respond to the July
27, 2000 NPRM. We strongly encourage the reader to refer to the
preambles from both of the NPRMs for a full discussion of these
regulations.
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 (which begins July 1)
to which they apply. However, that section of the HEA also permits the
Secretary to designate any regulation as one that an entity subject to
the regulation may choose to implement earlier. If the Secretary
designates a regulation for early implementation, he may specify when
and under what conditions the entity may implement it. Under this
authority, the Secretary has designated the following regulations for
early implementation:
Section 600.31--Change of Ownership Resulting in a Change of Control
for Private Nonprofit, Private For-Profit and Public Institutions
These regulations may be implemented upon publication of this final
rule. This means that if an institution is subject to loss of
eligibility due to a change in ownership that results in a change of
control, it may ask the Secretary to permit it to continue to
participate in the title IV, HEA programs on a provisional basis,
provided that the institution submits a materially complete
application.
This early implementation also changes the definition of
``ownership interests'' to exclude certain institutional investors, and
clarifies when a shareholder would be deemed a
[[Page 65663]]
controlling shareholder for change of control issues.
Early implementation means that public institutions that experience
a change in governance will not be considered to have undergone a
change in ownership resulting in a change of control, but these
institutions must report such changes within ten days of the
occurrence.
Finally, early implementation means that the provisions that define
more clearly ownership in a publicly-traded institution will be in
effect.
Section 668.5--Written Arrangements To Provide Educational Programs
These regulations may be implemented by institutions upon
publication of this final rule. This means that a school may use a
single written arrangement with a study-abroad organization to
represent agreements between the school and one or more foreign
schools. Also, any of the eligible institutions that are parties to a
written arrangement may make title IV calculations and disbursements
and will not be considered third-party servicers.
Section 675.19--Fiscal Procedures and Records
These regulations may be implemented upon publication of this final
rule. Institutions that administer the Federal Work-Study (FWS)
Programs will now have the option to certify FWS timesheets in writing
or electronically. If an institution elects to use an electronic
certification option, it should be certain to use the appropriate
safeguards, as outlined in the NPRM at page 49145.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
The regulations in this document were developed through the use of
negotiated rulemaking. Section 492 of the HEA requires that, before
publishing any proposed regulations to implement programs under title
IV of the HEA, the Secretary obtain public involvement in the
development of the proposed regulations. After obtaining advice and
recommendations, the Secretary must conduct a negotiated rulemaking
process to develop the proposed regulations.
These regulations were published in proposed form on August 10,
2000, following the completion of the negotiated rulemaking process.
The Secretary invited comments on the proposed regulations that were
due by September 25, 2000, and we received thirty-three comments.
An analysis of the comments we received and of the changes we made
in the regulations since publication of the NPRM follows.
We group major issues according to subject. 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.
Section 600.20--Application Procedures for Establishing,
Reestablishing, Maintaining, or Expanding Institutional Eligibility and
Certification
Applying for Additional Locations (Permanent and Temporary)
Comments: Many commenters supported exempting public institutions
from applying for approval to add an additional location at which 50
percent or more of an eligible program will be offered, if the
additional location is properly licensed and accredited, and located
within the same state as the main campus. Commenters opined that the
exemption is warranted because the Federal government's interests are
generally protected by sufficient oversight and systems of control at
public institutions. Additionally, most of these commenters believed
that sufficient financial backing by those governing public entities,
and monitoring by accrediting agencies are suitable to ensure the
academic quality of the location and to protect students who rely upon
title IV assistance.
One commenter believed the exemption is appropriate because public
institutions that have added locations in the past have not placed
Federal funds at risk.
Another commenter generally supported the proposed exemption, but
believed that the exemption should apply to an additional location even
if the location is not in the same state as the main campus. That
commenter believed that the reasons given by the Department for the
proposed exemption for public institutions (sufficient oversight and
financial backing by a public entity) are valid, regardless of whether
the additional location is located in the same state as the main
campus.
Six commenters did not support requiring public institutions to
report a new location. The commenters contended that, because we have
virtually always approved additional locations for public institutions,
required reporting would create unnecessary paperwork and a potential
for delay. Some of the commenters also believed that the minimal risk
represented by public institutions delivering title IV, HEA assistance
made reporting unnecessary.
Another commenter supported requiring public institutions to inform
us of a new location. That commenter felt that six years between
recertification cycles for participation in the student aid programs is
too long for locations to go unreported. The commenter believed that
those entities charged with oversight will improve the quality of such
oversight, by having an awareness of such locations. The commenter
noted that these benefits appear to outweigh the minimal burden of
reporting the locations.
Several commenters opposed our proposal exempting public
institutions from applying for approval of an additional location.
These commenters felt that treating public institutions differently
from other institutions is unwarranted, and would give an unfair
advantage to public institutions by eliminating potential delays. The
commenters believed that one set of criteria should be developed for
all institutions.
Two commenters felt that the unfair competitive advantage referred
to above would not serve the needs of students nor the public interest,
because it would not produce the best range of educational offerings or
encourage the most efficient use of resources. Another commenter noted
that in some highly competitive disciplines, such as computer science,
information technology, and business administration or executive
management, even a 35 day head start (our stated goal for the length of
time within which we will process applications for approval)
constitutes a significant advantage in terms of public relations and
market share.
Three commenters believed that there are many poorly performing
public institutions and that such an exemption would unnecessarily put
taxpayer funds at risk. One of these commenters was specifically
concerned that the proposed exemption for public institutions would
permit higher-risk public institutions, such as those on provisional
certification or the reimbursement payment method, to open new
locations and disburse title IV aid without our approval. The commenter
felt that this scenario would contradict the purpose of provisional
certification and reimbursement, which is to permit us to more closely
monitor higher-risk institutions. The commenter felt that it was
arbitrary and capricious to allow such high-risk public institutions to
open additional locations without our approval, while denying this
benefit to non-public institutions with strong
[[Page 65664]]
records of administrative capability and regulatory compliance.
Another commenter stated that there was no publicly available
evidence to support the contention that all public institutions provide
better oversight and control, plan better, and have more fiscal
resources than institutions in other sectors. The commenter was
convinced that there is evidence to the contrary, such as the placement
of public institutions on provisional certification, the failure of
public institutions to meet their unique financial responsibility
standards, and those public institutions with high student loan default
rates.
Some commenters that did not support the exemption for public
institutions suggested a number of general criteria that should be used
in determining whether any institution qualifies for an exemption. One
commenter suggested that the criteria should reward those institutions
that have demonstrated appropriate administrative capability. Another
commenter felt that the Federal interest in additional locations should
focus on an institution's maintenance of quality in their educational
programs. The commenter stated that we seemed to acknowledge that the
quality of programs is the issue by our statement in the preamble to
the NPRM that, ``some non-public institutions grew so rapidly that the
integrity of their educational and student aid programs was
compromised''.
Other commenters offered specific ideas about criteria that should
be used to determine if any institution should be granted an exemption
from reporting additional locations. One commenter suggested that an
exemption should be given to an institution that: satisfies the
criteria we proposed in Sec. 600.20(d)(2) for temporary locations, is
fully certified, meets the general standards of financial
responsibility, has no late audits or significant audit findings in the
last two years, has no significant program review liabilities, and was
not subject to a limitation, suspension, or termination action within
the last three years. Another commenter generally agreed with the
suggested criteria but instead of supporting the proposed criteria in
Sec. 600.20(d)(2), suggested the following criteria: the institution
has full regional or national accreditation, would not be subject to a
loss of eligibility under Sec. 668.188 if it adds a new location, and
has not added more than 10 locations at which it offered 50 percent or
more of an educational program since it was last certified to
participate in the title IV programs. The commenter also believed that
to qualify for an exemption, an institution should have no late audits
or significant audit findings in the last five years and never have
been subject to a program review liability.
Another commenter believed that it is appropriate for us to learn
about temporary locations that have been opened through annual
compliance audits. The commenter did not feel that a separate
notification would be needed.
However, another commenter representing the largest professional
association of certified public accountants disagreed. In particular,
the commenter stated that we should require institutions to submit
information on temporary locations directly to us. The commenter noted
that if we want independent third-party assurances on an institution's
management's assertions regarding the institution's compliance with
such a requirement, compliance objectives and associated auditor
reporting could be developed as part of the annual compliance audit.
One commenter supported the provision that would exempt a non-
public institution from applying for approval of licensed and
accredited temporary locations if it met the proposed criteria,
including the limitation on adding no more than six locations offering
50 percent or more of a program since it was last certified. Another
commenter felt that it is more appropriate to focus on the number of
such locations established in a short period of time rather than over
the entire certification period. The commenter recommended that no more
than two such locations should be added during any 12-month period, and
that for any more locations an institution should be required to obtain
our approval prior to disbursing any title IV funds to students
attending those locations.
Another commenter suggested that the criteria for exemption of
temporary locations should include a certification from the
institution's Chief Executive Officer that the institution currently
meets all applicable federal requirements regarding financial and
administrative capability (based on the institution's most recent
audited financial statement and compliance audit, recent regulatory
reviews, and program participation agreement). The commenter believed
that no more title IV funds should be disbursed to students at a
temporary location after the end of the first year, until we have
approved the location, unless the institution submitted a materially
complete application for our approval at least 35 days before the end
of the period.
The commenter also felt that the proposed requirement that the
institution must not have acquired the assets of another institution
that formerly provided programs at that site was stated in an overly
broad manner. Instead, the commenter recommended that the institution
must not have acquired a substantial amount of the assets of another
institution that formerly provided programs at that site within the
past 12 months. The commenter believed that this would address
significant, recent acquisitions or transfers of assets that we need to
be aware of without providing for unnecessary scrutiny of insignificant
transactions that do not pose concern.
Finally, one commenter noted inconsistencies between the proposed
regulatory language for Sec. 600.20(d)(2)(ii) (which refers to
locations at which more than 50 percent of a program is added) and the
description of the proposed provision (which refers to locations as
``offering at least 50 percent of an educational program'' in one place
and ``offered more than 50 percent of an educational program'' in
another). The commenter believed that the correct wording is ``at least
50 percent''.
Discussion: We appreciate the careful analysis and consideration
given to these issues by the commenters. With regard to the last
comment, the commenter is correct that we inadvertently used imprecise
language in describing the requirement when we published the NPRM. The
correct term, and the one used in the regulations is ``50 percent or
more''.
We carefully considered the comments received on both the proposal
to exempt public institutions from applying for approval of an
additional location where the institution will offer 50 percent or more
of an eligible program, and the proposal to exempt all institutions
from the requirement to apply for approval of an additional location if
it will be in operation for less than 12 months.
We agree that the approach to additional locations in the NPRM had
the potential to bar some high performing, non-public institutions from
the benefits and incentives we desire to make available to those who
administer our programs properly.
We stated in the NPRM our belief that the proposed regulations
would enhance efficiency and provide administrative relief for a
sizable segment of the population of eligible institutions, by not
requiring them to report locations they add until the next scheduled
recertification. Upon
[[Page 65665]]
consideration of the comments, we believe there is an opportunity to
meet that objective in a manner that may benefit more schools than we
initially anticipated. This is possible if we focus on reviewing and
approving those institutions that give us clear reasons for special
attention, while allowing others that demonstrate good compliance and
stability to merely report to us of their actions. Thus, we can
preserve our desire to provide regulatory and administrative relief
where merited by compliance and performance. This flexibility is
supported by a set of standards that identifies those schools that we
should review before approving their ability to disburse title IV, HEA
funds at a new location, regardless of the type of institution.
Based upon the comments received on these issues and our plans to
improve the efficiency of the reporting process, we are persuaded that
it is prudent and not particularly burdensome, to require all
institutions report to us if they wish to disburse title IV, HEA
program funds to students enrolled at a new additional location, at
which 50 percent or more of an eligible program will be offered.
For the purposes of these regulations, reporting consists of
submitting an electronic application which provides specific
information and required supporting documentation regarding the new
location.
While all institutions must report their new locations, only those
that meet certain criteria are required to wait for our approval before
disbursing title IV, HEA program funds to eligible students at those
locations. A full explanation of those criteria follows later in this
discussion. For the purposes of these regulations, approval consists of
the Secretary's written response to an application, granting specific
permission to an institution to disburse funds to students enrolled at
the specified location. If an institution is not required to wait for
our approval, it must simply report to us through the electronic
application process prior to disbursing title IV, HEA program funds.
These provisions replace the proposed across-the-board exemption
from reporting or approval for public institutions and the exemption
for temporary locations included in the NPRM.
Under these new provisions, no distinction is made between
temporary and permanent locations. All institutions are required to
report to us any new location where 50 percent or more of an eligible
program is offered. The report must include supporting documentation
and be provided before the institution disburses title IV, HEA funds to
students at that location. Those institutions that are only required to
report to us before they disburse federal student aid need not wait for
our approval. However, those institutions that meet any of the criteria
discussed below must report to us and then wait for our approval before
they can disburse title IV, HEA program funds to eligible students at
the new location.
We will only require an institution to apply and wait for our
approval to disburse title IV, HEA program funds at locations where
they offer 50 percent or more of an eligible location if the
institution: (1) Is provisionally certified, (2) is on the
reimbursement or cash monitoring system of payment, (3) has acquired
the assets of another institution that provided educational programs at
that location during the preceding year, and the other institution
participated in the title IV, HEA programs during that year, (4) would
be subject to a loss of eligibility under the cohort default rate
regulations at Sec. 688.188 if it adds that location, or if (5) the
Secretary previously prohibited it from disbursing title IV, HEA
program funds to students enrolled at an additional location before the
Secretary notifies it that the location is eligible to participate in
the title IV, HEA programs.
Under the last criteria we may preclude an institution from adding
locations due to financial, administrative, compliance or other
concerns about an institution. In this case, the institution will
receive a written notice that sets out the reason it will be required
to apply for approval for additional locations. The institution may
request reconsideration of that decision if it shows there are material
errors in the facts we considered in making our determination.
With regard to the criteria related to provisional certification,
the Secretary plans to publish a change to the provision in 34 CFR
668.16(m) that relates to placing an institution on provisional
certification if it has a cohort default rate in the FFEL and/or Direct
Loan programs of 25 percent or greater. That change will provide more
flexibility to the Secretary in choosing whether or not to place such
an institution on provisional certification.
We believe that many more institutions will benefit from the
provision that they must only report to us and not await our approval,
since it allows them to begin disbursing aid at these new locations
immediately upon their reporting to us. We anticipate the number of
institutions that qualify for this flexibility will be much greater
than the number of institutions that will be required to await our
approval before disbursing title IV, HEA program funds to eligible
students at those locations. Also, the minimal reporting burden
required of an institution enables us to maintain accurate and updated
records of all locations where students who are receiving title IV, HEA
funds are enrolled.
Institutions are responsible for knowing whether they need to
obtain our approval to disburse title IV, HEA program funds to eligible
students at the new location. If an institution is unsure whether it
meets the criteria requiring it to wait for our approval, it may
contact us for specific guidance. Institutions that add locations
without obtaining our approval when they knew, or should have known,
that they were required to wait may be subject to administrative
repayments and other sanctions.
Changes: We are revising Sec. 600.20(c) to eliminate the exemptions
for public institutions and for temporary additional locations that
were proposed in Sec. 600.20(d) of the NPRM and any related references
to those exemptions. Under Sec. 600.21(a)(3), all institutions are
required to report to us if they wish to add an additional location
where they offer or will offer 50 percent or more of an eligible
program. Section 600.20(c) provides that an institution must apply to
us for approval if it has added an additional location and must await
the Secretary's approval before disbursing title IV, HEA program funds
at that location if it meets one or more of the conditions described
above and included in the regulation at Sec. 600.20(c)(1)(i)-(v).
Comments: One commenter, in focusing on the Secretary's possible
responses to an application as proposed in Sec. 600.20(f)--
Sec. 600.20(e) in these final rules --, asked us to clarify the
difference between a ``program in which it is eligible to participate''
versus ``programs in which it is eligible to apply for funds'' in
Sec. 600.20(f)(2) --Sec. 600.20(e)(2) in these final rules --. The
commenter also asked for clarification of the reference to a branch
campus in Sec. 600.20(f)(4)-Sec. 600.20(e)(6) in these final rules.
Discussion: Section 600.20(e)(2) reflects the current regulations
at Sec. 600.21(a), which identifies the conditions and applications to
which the Secretary will respond. Section 600.20(e)(2)(i) states that
the Secretary will notify an institution whether it is eligible to
participate in the title IV, HEA programs. Section 600.20(e)(2)(ii)
states that the notification will enumerate the specific title IV,
student aid programs in which the institution is
[[Page 65666]]
eligible to participate. Section 600.20(e)(2)(iii) states that the
Secretary notifies the institution of the specific title IV, student
aid programs for which the institution must submit an additional
application to receive funding. For example, the campus-based programs
require submission of an annual application (FISAP) before funds are
allocated to an institution.
Notices sent according to Sec. 600.20(e)(2)(iv) and 600.20(e)(2)(v)
will indicate the effective dates of eligibility, and any conditions,
related to that eligibility respectively.
We agree with the commenter that Sec. 600.20(f)(4) in the NPRM does
not provide a reference to Sec. 600.20(c)(4) and (5). We will make the
necessary corrections.
Changes: Section 600.20(e) has been revised to identify how the
Secretary responds to applications for branch campuses.
Section 600.31--Change in Ownership Resulting in a Change in Control
for Private Nonprofit and Private For-Profit Institutions
Publicly-Traded Corporations
Comments: A commenter recommended that we include a succinct
definition of the term ``institutional investor'' that specifically
mentions the following types of investors: investment companies,
registered investment advisors, business development companies,
employee benefit plans, banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and
securities dealers.
Discussion: We agree that our definition of the term
``institutional investor'' should be clarified. However, we find that
definitions of this industry term are often more descriptive of
entities to be included, rather than exhaustive of the characteristics
of such entities. Therefore, we defer to the Securities and Exchange
Commission's (SEC) regulatory definition of a U.S. institutional
investor, with which publicly-traded corporations and most investors
can be expected to be familiar.
Changes: We have added a cross-reference from the SEC regulations
in 17 CFR 240.15a-6(b)(7) to the reference ``U.S. institutional
investor'' in the definitions at Sec. 600.31(b)(2)(ii) and
600.31(c)(2)(ii)(A). Although illustrative of the entities that will be
considered institutional investors under this regulation, the reference
is not intended to be exhaustive.
Comments: One commenter felt that the proposed definition of a
``controlling shareholder'' equates ``voting stock'' with ``shares''.
The commenter noted that voting stock is not always equivalent to the
number of shares of stock an individual may own in a corporation, as in
the case where non-voting stock has been issued. The commenter believed
that if this definition is based on other regulatory provisions that
raise the same issue, we should address all occurrences of this in the
final regulations.
Another commenter suggested clarifying in proposed
Sec. 600.31(c)(2)(ii)(A) that the controlling shareholder be determined
through measuring only the voting stock, by adding the phrase ``of the
voting stock'' after the word ``shares'' to read: ``A controlling
shareholder is a shareholder who holds or controls through agreement
both 25 percent or more of the total outstanding voting stock of the
corporation and more shares of the voting stock than any other
shareholder.''
Discussion: We agree that the term ``share'' is not synonymous with
actual voting stock. The integral element of this topic relates to a
shareholder's ability to significantly impact or control the actions of
a corporation, or its management. Thus, we agree that revising the
regulation to focus on ownership and control of voting stock is
appropriate.
Changes: Section 600.31(c)(2)(ii)(A) has been changed to add the
words ``of voting stock'' after the word ``shares'', signaling that the
regulation applies to stock that contains voting privileges.
Comments: A commenter believed that the proposed wording used to
describe who is not a controlling shareholder in
Sec. 600.31(c)(2)(ii)(A) should be modified. The commenter suggested
that the regulation should exclude from consideration all shares held
in the categories listed, rather than only excluding such stock if it
represents the individual's sole holdings in that corporation. The
commenter recommended revising the third sentence to exclude all of the
shares held in the excluded capacities in determining whether the
shareholder is a controlling shareholder to read: ``Any shares of the
corporation's voting stock held by a shareholder (1) as an
institutional investor, (2) in mutual funds, (3) through a profit-
sharing plan or (4) in an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) are
excluded for purposes of determining whether the shareholder is a
controlling shareholder.''
Discussion: We disagree. When identifying those shareholders whose
ability to influence a corporation's management of student assistance
merits scrutiny, we believe that it is reasonable to exclude large,
institutional investors whose only investment with a specific
corporation exists solely for the investment value. We consider these
investors generally to have investment objectives that differ from
other investors who take a controlling position in a corporation. The
objectives of the institutional investor normally prompt a lesser
interest in influencing management policies that may affect the
administration of student assistance than those of other controlling
shareholders. It is reasonable to infer that a shareholder who acquires
control of the voting rights of stock held by others who qualify as
institutional investors does not show this same lack of interest in
those management policies.
Therefore, a person who controls 25 percent or more of the
outstanding voting stock of a company and more stock than any other
person by a combination of personal investment ownership and
representation of institutional investors uniquely classifies one as a
controlling shareholder, who can reasonably be expected to exercise
real influence over management and its policies. The effect of this
kind of shareholder's control on the corporation deserves the same
scrutiny as that of any other shareholder who can control corporate
policies.
Thus, to determine whether a shareholder is a controlling
shareholder under the bright-line test, the rule counts all voting
stock held or controlled by a shareholder, unless all stock held by
that shareholder is held as an institutional investor.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter disagreed with our proposal to suspend
eligibility by defining a change of ownership resulting in a change of
control to occur when a stockholder's ownership share crosses what he
believed to be an arbitrary ``bright line''. He thought it was unfair
to define a decrease in stock ownership by a controlling shareholder in
a way that caused the negative result of suspending an institution's
eligibility until a new application has been reviewed and approved. The
commenter noted that, while the SEC and GAAP may require certain
reporting activities for certain events, they do not cause immediate
suspension of business activities or licenses. The commenter
recommended that eligibility should be continued if financial
responsibility and administrative capability has already been
demonstrated and has not been downgraded by the ownership change. The
commenter felt that the 25 percent threshold is arbitrary. The
commenter contended that, while 25 percent may be a large enough
percentage of stock to allow an individual to influence a corporation,
more than 50 percent of the
[[Page 65667]]
stock must be owned for an individual to have control of the
corporation. The commenter also noted that control does not necessarily
change with purchase or sale of stock. He stated that control is
exercised by a corporation's Board of Directors, which does not
automatically change with purchase and sale of stock. He felt that any
review or suspension of an institution's eligibility should be
predicated on a precipitous change in Directors, not stock ownership.
Discussion: We disagree with the commenter's notion that the use of
a clear threshold in determining ownership and control is unfair or
arbitrary. Quite the contrary, we sought to avoid such treatment by
referencing established standards and guidelines of the accounting
industry, which are accepted and adopted by most publicly-traded
corporations.
Since most financial transactions are accounted for in accordance
with the established system of accounting principles, we patterned our
``bright line'' threshold directly after Accounting Principles Board
Opinion No. 18, which defines for GAAP purposes the percentage of
ownership that can reasonably be presumed to give an investor the
ability to exercise significant influence over an investee.
GAAP provides that control of 20 percent of the voting stock of a
corporation raises a rebuttable presumption of control of the
corporation and conversely, that control of a smaller percentage of a
corporation's stock raises a rebuttable presumption that the holder
lacks control. We chose that adoption of an irrebutable ``bright line''
test was desirable both to allow institutions to plan their financial
affairs with greater predictability, and to eliminate the burden of our
examining the circumstances surrounding each significant diminution in
ownership interest of an institution owned by a publicly-traded
corporation. We believe that a higher threshold than 20 percent should
be used in return for adoption of a ``bright line'' standard. The
choice of 25 percent as the threshold is not compelled by statute or
regulation, but is a reasonable choice. We therefore choose to retain
25 percent as the ``bright line'' measure of control.
We also disagree that while 25 percent ownership of stock may be
influential, 50 percent is required to control an entity. For publicly-
traded corporations, the opposite inference is compelling: The more
widely held the stock of a corporation, the smaller the percentage of
its stock that need be controlled by a person in order to allow that
person to ``direct or cause the direction of the management and
policies'' of the corporation (see, Sec. 600.31(b) definition of
``control''). The investing public and the accounting profession
recognize that a shareholder can control a corporation while owning or
controlling far less than 50 percent of its stock. There is no reason
that we should ignore that same conclusion.
Finally, the position that eligibility and certification lapse upon
a change in ownership that results in a change in control is not a
position that we arbitrarily adopted, but is required by the HEA.
Section 498(i) mandates that eligibility must be reestablished after a
change in ownership resulting in a change in control, and that the
transfer of the controlling interest of stock of the institution is an
action that results in such a change in control.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another commenter supported adding specific references to
``private nonprofit and private for-profit institutions''. The
commenter believed that these terms help nonprofit institutions
recognize that certain change of ownership provisions apply to them,
because the words ``change of ownership'' could suggest applicability
only to the for-profit sector. The commenter did not feel that the
proposed changes to Sec. 600.31(c)(7) are an appropriate recognition of
differences among the sectors in postsecondary education, and believes
that the change of ownership regulations for independent nonprofit
institutions should be reconsidered in negotiated rulemaking in the
near future. The commenter believed that some mergers between
institutions should be allowed without triggering a change of ownership
resulting in a change of control, such as the merger of two independent
nonprofit institutions, both of which are participating in good
standing in the title IV programs. The commenter believed that such a
merger could serve the best interest of students and society by
allowing distinctive educational programs to continue to be available
to students, supported by the stronger financial and administrative
base of the merged institution.
Discussion: We believe Congress considered similar arguments when
it deliberated the latest reauthorization of the HEA. While the
specific terminology suggested by the commenter may not appear in the
statute, the very example that the commenter provides regarding a
merger between institutions is specifically addressed in section
498(i)(2)(C) of the HEA. We considered suggestions that we should
implement certain labels to clarify the full extent and application of
this section to all institutions, regardless of unique sectors. Thus we
included the terms ``private nonprofit'' and ``private for-profit'' as
descriptive modifiers where appropriate. We disagree with the notion
that certain entities are disadvantaged by general labels or the lack
of more specific ones.
Changes: None.
Public Institutions
Comments: Nine commenters supported the proposed provision that
does not regard a change in governance at a public institution as a
change in ownership, if the institution's new governing body is in the
same State included in the institution's program participation
agreement and the new governing body has acknowledged the institution's
responsibilities under its program participation agreement. The
commenters felt this exemption was appropriate for the same reasons
that some commenters supported exempting public institutions from
applying for our approval of an additional location: sufficient
oversight and systems of control by governing public entities,
sufficient financial backing of the governing public entity, and
monitoring by the institution's accrediting agency to ensure that the
Federal government's interests are protected.
One commenter supported the provision that would provide that a
change in governance at a public institution is not a change in
ownership. Additionally, the commenter did not believe that it was
necessary to limit this to changes in governance in the same state
included in the program participation agreement. The commenter felt
that the same assurances associated with the fact that public oversight
of the institution exists would also apply in the rare instance that
the governance of a public institution switched from one state to
another. The commenter also did not believe that it would be necessary
to require the new governing authority to acknowledge the institution's
responsibilities under its program participation agreement. The
commenter noted that the institution remains the same institution and,
therefore, retains the responsibilities it acquired by signing its
program participation agreement.
Five commenters did not believe that a particular form of
acknowledgement should be required for institutions that must
acknowledge their continuing responsibilities under the program
participation agreement because the formal transfer of governing
authority might not include such an acknowledgement. These commenters
felt it would be more useful for
[[Page 65668]]
institutions to tailor their acknowledgement to reflect the specific
circumstances of the transfer of governance. One commenter felt that a
letter or statement from the institutional authority would be
sufficient.
Three commenters did not support the proposed provision allowing a
change in governance at a public institution to not be considered a
change in ownership if the institution's new governing body is in the
same State. The commenters contended that there are several
circumstances where a public institution should be considered to have
had a change in ownership.
The commenters also believed that a change in ownership has
occurred when a public institution is transferred from control from a
higher level of governmental authority (such as a State) to a lower one
(such as a county) which may not have the same level of resources to
commit to the institution. One commenter believed that in such a case
there was no guarantee of continuing operational effectiveness. The
commenter felt that such an exemption for all public schools would put
taxpayers' funds at risk. Two of the commenters believed that, at the
very least, the institution should be required to inform us of the
change so that we can determine whether it meets the requirements for
the exemption.
One commenter felt that new types of ``quasi public'' institutions,
such as charter colleges are not likely to have the same level of
oversight and financial stability as a traditional public institution,
and should not be given broad regulatory exemptions. The commenter also
felt that we should retain an interest in approving a change in which
an institution, for the first time, will be administering the Federal
financial aid programs. The commenter gave an example of several two-
year colleges in a state that have been managed by four-year
institutions, but may be given autonomy to operate (and presumably,
participate in the title IV, HEA programs) on their own. The commenter
concluded by noting that all of the public institutions in that state
may have their state funding tied to meeting specific performance
goals.
Discussion: We explained in the NPRM and in the earlier discussion
related to additional locations that there has been a consistent
history of stability, compliance and accountability in the operation of
public institutions that supports the proposal to exempt certain
governance changes within the State from being considered changes of
ownership resulting in changes of control. Moreover, this level of
accountability has been present at every level of government that
operates public institutions. For that reason, we are not persuaded
that the level of oversight or the systems of control that monitor the
performance of these institutions will change drastically because of a
transfer in control between governing public entities within a State.
We are not persuaded to extend the scope of the proposal to permit
a public institution in one State to acquire a public institution in
another State without having that change considered a change of
ownership resulting in a change in control, and thus requiring the
institution to apply for approval of a change of ownership. In such an
instance, the ownership and control of the institution would be
changing from one State to another, so that an entirely different
public constituency would be assuming responsibility for the
institution. This type of structure would also raise questions about
State licensing, since the public institution owned by one State would
be operating under the State licensing requirements of a different
State. We have considered the suggestions from commenters that public
institutions should be required to report to us when a change of
governance takes place even if that change is not considered a change
in ownership resulting in a change in control, and we agree. Such
information will permit us to examine the transaction to ensure that it
meets the definitional requirements and to determine if there are any
other issues involving the institution warranting further action.
We agree with the comments that cautioned against exempting changes
of governance at a public institution that is transferred to a ``quasi
public'' entity such as a charter college or other hybrid entity. As we
stated in the NPRM, the provision does not apply if a change in
governance involves a hybrid entity, such as a corporation with limited
liability, public-private partnerships, or joint ownership with out-of-
State entities.
Changes: Section 600.21(a)(9) has been added to require public
institutions to report to us within 10 days of when they experience a
change in governance.
Comments: A commenter asked us to clarify the manner in which the
institution's continuing responsibilities must be acknowledged. The
commenter noted that in the preamble to the NPRM (page 49141), we
stated that the acknowledgment must be written and must be a part of
the documents that transfer control to the new governing body. The
commenter felt that the next sentence confuses the meaning of the
previous sentence by stating that the written acknowledgment, if not
included in the documents transferring control, can be submitted
separately to us. The commenter believed that we intended to say that
notification without acknowledgment suffices if that acknowledgment is
included in the official transfer documents; otherwise, notification of
the change (not simply acknowledgement of its official records) is
required.
Discussion: As explained above, the regulation is being changed to
require public institutions to report to us within 10 days of
undergoing a change in governance. If documentation transferring the
governance from one public entity to another within the State
explicitly acknowledges the institution's continuing responsibilities
under its Program Participation Agreement, that documentation is
sufficient, and no additional acknowledgment must be provided in the
notice, or separately. Such an acknowledgment may be based on the
circumstances of the transfer, and simply included in the official
transfer documentation. If the documentation transferring control of
the public institution to another in-State public entity does not
acknowledge the institution's continuing responsibilities under its
Program Participation Agreement, the institution must acknowledge its
continuing responsibilities by separate letter or in the notice
advising us of the change in governance.
Changes: None.
Section 668.5--Written Arrangements To Provide Educational Programs
Comments: One commenter from a public institution noted that the
proposed flexibilities that would extend to institutions participating
in study-abroad programs would eliminate many current deterrents for
students trying to gain access to aid for those programs. He believed
that the existing guidance regarding contractual and consortium
agreements often causes confusion. The commenter stated that the
proposed regulation would clarify the required procedures and
effectively minimize such confusion. The commenter noted the
clarification the proposed regulation makes by defining third-party
providers and study-abroad organizations as appropriate constituent
groups in study-abroad programs.
Another commenter representing a large, private university
supported the proposed revisions, and expected a significant reduction
in the administrative burden experienced, as schools currently must
obtain and maintain separate agreements with each
[[Page 65669]]
foreign institution that its students are attending. The commenter
believed that the ability to make agreements with study-abroad
organizations will enhance the quality and consistency of information
shared between home and host institutions, and will likely create more
expedient delivery of the title IV, HEA program funds to students in
these programs.
Discussion: We appreciate the positive responses to this proposal.
We anticipate that these regulations will make it substantially easier
for students to receive financial aid while enrolled in eligible
domestic programs away from their home institutions. We believe that
the ability for either home or host institutions to pay the student's
title IV, HEA program funds is a significant feature that will enhance
and expand diverse learning opportunities.
Changes: None.
Section 668.13--Certification Procedures
Comments: One commenter agreed with our proposal to permit the
chief executive of an institution to designate another executive level
officer to serve as an alternate for certification training purposes.
The commenter also thought it made sense not to require schools to
attend training when a participating institution was merely adding a
new title IV, HEA program.
Discussion: We believe that all eligible, participating
institutions should receive basic training about the federal
regulations and procedural requirements that pertain to administering
the title IV, HEA programs. We want to assure students and taxpayers
that they can expect an accurate application of the program
requirements and a consistent level of proficiency on the part of the
institutions we authorize to deliver title IV assistance.
We regularly review the training requirements to ensure that
relevance, accuracy, and practicality are reflected in the subject
matter. We also seek to continually simplify the training requirements
without diluting the core content, to encourage institutions to make
use of these resources when assessing and maintaining the technical
readiness of their staffs.
Changes: None.
Section 668.19--Financial Aid History
Comments: Several commenters supported the proposal to eliminate
the paper financial aid transcript (FAT) requirements for all transfer
students in favor of a process under which the National Student Loan
Data System (NSLDS) provides financial aid history information about
current-year transfer students directly to schools that need it for one
or more of their transfer students.
Discussion: We appreciate the support of the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked whether the school or the student is
liable for an overpayment of title IV aid based on the financial aid
history information the school receives from NSLDS after the seven day
timeframe.
Discussion: Once a school receives information that limits a
student's eligibility, it may not disburse additional title IV, HEA aid
to that student until the problem is revolved. As currently provided in
Dear Colleague Letter GEN-96-13, a school that follows the procedures
in obtaining financial aid history information from NSLDS may rely on
that information in making eligibility and award determinations. The
school is not liable for any overpayments. The same is true under this
rule. A school that notifies NSLDS and either waits seven days or
checks NSLDS on-line before it disburses title IV, HEA program funds is
not liable for any overpayments based on information it receives from
NSLDS at a later date.
However, a student may be liable for any overpayment that is the
result of information the school receives after it follows the
procedures in these rules. This concept is explained more fully in Dear
Colleague Letter GEN-96-13.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the Secretary designate this
regulation as one that a school may implement as soon as it is
published as a final rule instead of waiting until it normally takes
effect on July 1, 2001.
Discussion: We are currently discussing with schools and other
partners various administrative approaches that could be used to
implement this rule. After we complete those discussions, system
improvements and enhancements need to be made to NSLDS before schools
can use it for this purpose. Therefore, it is unlikely that we will
have the systems support needed to implement the new provisions before
July 1, 2001.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that the NSLDS information on an
Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR) should be current with
all financial aid transactions contained in NSLDS. This case requires
no distinction between current-year and prior-year transfer students
with respect to the ISIR information a school uses to make eligibility
and award determinations. The commenter further stated that if the
information on an ISIR is not the same as that in NSLDS, as implied in
the preamble discussion, we should provide current NSLDS information to
schools via the ISIR process.
Discussion: The financial aid history information on an ISIR
reflects NSLDS information as of the date that the ISIR is created.
Currently, an ISIR is not updated solely to reflect disbursements of
title IV aid that are reported by an NSLDS data provider. This is
because, under such a process, every school that a student listed on
the FAFSA would be required to receive an updated ISIR every time new
disbursements were reported to NSLDS, including the school that
reported those disbursements. Certainly, there is no benefit in
providing to schools, at considerable costs to the taxpayers and
institutions, millions of updated ISIR records that contain information
they do not need.
On the other hand, we agree with the commenter's general view that
there should be a single process under which a school receives updated
financial aid history information for all transfer students. However,
in many cases (particularly for prior-year transfer students) the
updated information will not affect those students' current year
eligibility or award amounts. Moreover, currently we have no way of
determining which school a transfer student is attending until after
NSLDS receives disbursement information identifying that school.
For these reasons, we proposed a targeted approach under which a
school would inform NSLDS of the transfer students that are attending
(or planning to attend) their school and NSLDS would provide, directly
to that school, updated information about those students. Although
these rules apply only to current-year transfer students, a school may
use the new NSLDS process to receive updated information for any
transfer student.
Changes: None.
Section 668.165--Notices and Authorizations
Comments: Two commenters representing a large coalition in the
higher education community stated that requiring confirmation and
retention of electronic notices is counter-productive, and diminishing
to the efficiencies inherent in constantly advancing technologies. By
comparison they noted that we do not require similar tracking and
confirmation of receipt for mail sent via the U.S. Postal Service
(USPS).
Discussion: After many discussions regarding the practical
complications of documenting receipt of electronic mail,
[[Page 65670]]
we agree that some schools may experience an impractical, although
unintended, burden to maintain copies of the student's or parent's
confirmation of a disbursement notice. Given the range and diversity of
capabilities in various e-mail and other electronic applications, we
believe that institutions should determine the best way for them to
confirm that a student or parent received an electronic notice. Thus,
the language in the NPRM, and in the final rule, allows electronic
notices, while only requiring that institutions confirm that those
notices reached the intended parties.
We noted in the NPRM that we support the presumption recognized in
the law that mail deposited with the USPS is delivered. Certainly,
there are documented cases where this presumption fails because of the
potential for error that accompanies any system dependent upon human
interaction. However, we see the differences between an established,
federally supported, national delivery system and an electronic
delivery method that operates independently and through many different
private software providers without a uniform standard, as very
significant.
The USPS has several proven methods and systems that it may use to
track mail deposited in its system. It also utilizes uniform automated
systems that process mail throughout the nation. The USPS also sets
coherent operating standards and employs a system of quality assurance
to monitor the application and effectiveness of those standards.
On the contrary, both the software applications and the hardware
upon which they operate generally limit e-mail capabilities. There are
no observed standards or mandated features inherent in all e-mail
software applications that provide the quality assurance or maintain a
similar level of consistency that parallels that of the USPS.
Changes: None.
Section 675.19--Fiscal Procedures and Records
Comments: One commenter strongly supported our proposal to allow
electronic certification of Federal Work-Study (FWS) timesheets. The
commenter believed that this option alleviates some of the
inconvenience of loss, damage, forgery and other complications that may
occur when using paper certifications. The commenter also felt that the
proposed regulations will enhance the timeliness of the delivery of FWS
funds, and will improve the security and retention of the related
records.
Another commenter was also supportive of our proposal to allow
electronic certification by a supervisor to approve FWS hours recorded
on a student's time record. The commenter noted that many of the
departments at her school have several hundred employees each.
Accordingly, the commenter was aware that several of these departments
have implemented electronic timekeeping systems, which have vastly
improved the accuracy of the timekeeping function for such a large
number of employees. The commenter also felt that being able to move
the FWS payroll employees to a more technologically advanced system
would be less burdensome, and would avoid having to keep a separate
time system for FWS students. The commenter believed that these
regulations would improve the utilization of FWS in both on-campus jobs
and increasingly, in off-campus employment.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for these regulations. Just
as we do with manual certification systems, we continue to urge
institutions to assess the adequacy of their systems and internal
controls, to assure that reasonable safeguards exist to secure
certifications that will be completed electronically.
We refer those who administer the FWS Program to page 49145 of the
August 10, 2000 NPRM for a full discussion of the safeguards we expect
schools to include in any electronic certification process they
implement.
Changes: None.
Executive Order 12866
We have reviewed these final regulations in accordance with
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order we have assessed
the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the final regulations are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined to
be necessary for administering these programs effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of these final regulations, we have determined that
the benefits of the regulations justify the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with state, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
We discussed the potential costs and benefits of these final
regulations in the preamble to the NPRM under Executive Order 12866
(see page 49147 of the NPRM) Potential Costs and Benefits.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not require you to respond
to a collection of information unless it displays a valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control number. We display the valid OMB
control numbers assigned to the collections of information in these
final regulations at the end of the affected sections of the
regulations.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In the NPRM we requested comments on whether the proposed
regulations would require transmission of information that any other
agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
Based on the response to the NPRM and on our review, we have
determined that these final regulations do not require transmission of
information that any other agency or authority of the United States
gathers or makes available.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at either of the
following sites:
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://ifap.ed.gov/csb_html/fedlreg.htm
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at either of the previous sites. 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, D.C., area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.033 Federal Work-
Study Program; 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program)
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 600
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities,
Consumer protection, Grant programs-education, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Student aid.
[[Page 65671]]
34 CFR Part 668
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities,
Consumer protection, Grant programs--education, Loan programs--
education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid.
34 CFR Part 675
Colleges and universities, Employment, Grant programs--education,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid.
34 CFR Part 690
Grant programs--education, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Student aid.
Dated: October 25, 2000.
Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Secretary amends title
34 of the Code of Federal Regulations by amending parts 600, 668, 675,
and 690 as follows:
PART 600--INSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT
OF 1965, AS AMENDED
1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1003, 1088, 1091, 1094, 1099b,
and 1099c, unless otherwise noted.
Secs. 600.9 and 600.30 [Removed and reserved]
2. Sections 600.9 and 600.30 are removed and reserved.
3. Section 600.10 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(2) and by revising paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 600.10 Date, extent, duration, and consequence of eligibility.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) The Secretary approves that location under Sec. 600.20(e)(4);
or
(ii) The location is licensed and accredited, the institution does
not have to apply to the Secretary for approval of that location under
Sec. 600.20(c), and the institution has reported to the Secretary that
location under Sec. 600.21.
(Approved by Office of Management and Budget under control number
1845-0098)
4. Section 600.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 600.20 Application procedures for establishing, reestablishing,
maintaining, or expanding institutional eligibility and certification.
(a) Initial eligibility application. An institution that wishes to
establish its eligibility to participate in any HEA program must submit
an application to the Secretary for a determination that it qualifies
as an eligible institution under this part. If the institution also
wishes to be certified to participate in the title IV, HEA programs, it
must indicate that intent on the application, and submit all the
documentation indicated on the application to enable the Secretary to
determine that it satisfies the relevant certification requirements
contained in 34 CFR part 668, subparts B and L.
(b) Reapplication. (1) A currently designated eligible institution
that is not participating in the title IV, HEA programs must apply to
the Secretary for a determination that the institution continues to
meet the requirements in this part if the Secretary requests the
institution to reapply. If the institution wishes to be certified to
participate in the title IV, HEA programs, it must submit an
application to the Secretary and must submit all the supporting
documentation indicated on the application to enable the Secretary to
determine that it satisfies the relevant certification requirements
contained in subparts B and L of 34 CFR part 668.
(2) A currently designated eligible institution that participates
in the title IV, HEA programs must apply to the Secretary for a
determination that the institution continues to meet the requirements
in this part and in 34 CFR part 668 if the institution wishes to--
(i) Continue to participate in the title IV, HEA programs beyond
the scheduled expiration of the institution's current eligibility and
certification designation;
(ii) Reestablish eligibility and certification as a private
nonprofit, private for-profit, or public institution following a change
in ownership that results in a change in control as described in
Sec. 600.31; or
(iii) Reestablish eligibility and certification after the
institution changes its status as a proprietary, nonprofit, or public
institution.
(c) Application to expand eligibility. A currently designated
eligible institution that wishes to expand the scope of its eligibility
and certification and disburse title IV, HEA Program funds to students
enrolled in that expanded scope must apply to the Secretary and wait
for approval to--
(1) Add a location at which the institution offers or will offer 50
percent or more of an educational program if one of the following
conditions applies, otherwise it must report to the Secretary under
Sec. 600.21:
(i) The institution participates in the title IV, HEA programs
under a provisional certification, as provided in 34 CFR 668.13.
(ii) The institution receives title IV, HEA program funds under the
reimbursement or cash monitoring payment method, as provided in 34 CFR
part 668, subpart K.
(iii) The institution acquires the assets of another institution
that provided educational programs at that location during the
preceding year and participated in the title IV, HEA programs during
that year.
(iv) The institution would be subject to a loss of eligibility
under 34 CFR 668.188 if it adds that location.
(v) The Secretary previously notified the institution that it must
apply for approval of an additional location.
(2) Increase its level of program offering (e.g., adding graduate
degree programs when it previously offered only baccalaureate degree
programs);
(3) Add an educational program if the institution is required to
apply to the Secretary for approval under Sec. 600.10(c);
(4) Add a branch campus at a location that is not currently
included in the institution's eligibility and certification
designation; or
(5) Convert an eligible location to a branch campus.
(d) Application format. To satisfy the requirements of paragraphs
(a), (b), and (c) of this section, an institution must apply in a
format prescribed by the Secretary for that purpose and provide all the
information and documentation requested by the Secretary to make a
determination of its eligibility and certification.
(e) Secretary's response to applications. (1) If the Secretary
receives an application under paragraph (a) or (b)(1) of this section,
the Secretary notifies the institution--
(i) Whether the applicant institution qualifies in whole or in part
as an eligible institution under the appropriate provisions in
Secs. 600.4 through 600.7; and
(ii) Of the locations and educational programs that qualify as the
eligible institution if only a portion of the applicant qualifies as an
eligible institution;
(2) If the Secretary receives an application under paragraphs (a)
or (b) of this section and that institution applies to participate in
the title IV, HEA programs, the Secretary notifies the institution--
(i) Whether the institution is certified to participate in those
programs;
[[Page 65672]]
(ii) Of the title IV, HEA programs in which it is eligible to
participate;
(iii) Of the title IV, HEA programs in which it is eligible to
apply for funds;
(iv) Of the effective date of its eligibility to participate in
those programs; and
(v) Of the conditions under which it may participate in those
programs;
(3) If the Secretary receives an application under paragraph (b)(2)
of this section, the Secretary notifies the institution whether it
continues to be certified, or whether it reestablished its eligibility
and certification to participate in the title IV, HEA programs and the
scope of such approval.
(4) If the Secretary receives an application under paragraph (c)(1)
of this section for an additional location, the Secretary notifies the
institution whether the location is eligible or ineligible to
participate in the title IV, HEA programs, and the date of eligibility
if the location is determined eligible;
(5) If the Secretary receives an application under paragraph (c)(2)
of this section for an increase in the level of program offering, or
for an additional educational program under paragraph (c)(3) of this
section, the Secretary notifies the institution whether the program
qualifies as an eligible program, and if the program qualifies, the
date of eligibility; and
(6) If the Secretary receives an application under paragraphs
(c)(4) or (c)(5) of this section to have a branch campus certified to
participate in the title IV, HEA programs as a branch campus, the
Secretary notifies the institution whether that branch campus is
certified to participate and the date that the branch campus is
eligible to begin participation.
(f) Disbursement rules related to applications. (1)(i) Except as
provided under paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section and 34 CFR 668.26,
if an institution submits an application under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of
this section because its participation period is scheduled to expire,
after that expiration date the institution may not disburse title IV,
HEA program funds to students attending that institution until the
institution receives the Secretary's notification that the institution
is again eligible to participate in those programs.
(ii) An institution described in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this
section may disburse title IV, HEA program funds to its students if the
institution submits to the Secretary a materially complete renewal
application in accordance with the provisions of 34 CFR 668.13(b)(2),
and has not received a final decision from the Department on that
application.
(2)(i) Except as provided under paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this
section and 34 CFR 668.26, if a private nonprofit, private for-profit,
or public institution submits an application under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)
or (b)(2)(iii) of this section because it has undergone or will undergo
a change in ownership that results in a change of control or a change
in status, the institution may not disburse title IV, HEA program funds
to students attending that institution after the change of ownership or
status until the institution receives the Secretary's notification that
the institution is eligible to participate in those programs.
(ii) An institution described in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this
section may disburse title IV, HEA program funds to its students if the
Secretary issues a provisional extension of certification under
paragraph (g) of this section.
(3) If an institution must apply to the Secretary under paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section, the institution may not disburse
title IV, HEA program funds to students attending the subject location,
program, or branch until the institution receives the Secretary's
notification that the location, program, or branch is eligible to
participate in the title IV, HEA programs.
(4) If an institution applies to the Secretary under paragraph
(c)(5) of this section to convert an eligible location to a branch
campus, the institution may continue to disburse title IV, HEA program
funds to students attending that eligible location.
(5) If an institution does not apply to the Secretary to obtain the
Secretary's approval of a new location, program, increased level of
program offering, or branch, and the location, program, or branch does
not qualify as an eligible location, program, or branch of that
institution under this part and 34 CFR part 668, the institution is
liable for all title IV, HEA program funds it disburses to students
enrolled at that location or branch or in that program.
(g) Application for provisional extension of certification. (1) If
a private nonprofit institution, a private for-profit institution, or a
public institution participating in the title IV, HEA programs
undergoes a change in ownership that results in a change of control as
described in 34 CFR 600.31, the Secretary may continue the
institution's participation in those programs on a provisional basis,
if the institution under the new ownership submits a ``materially
complete application'' that is received by the Secretary no later than
10 business days after the day the change occurs.
(2) For purposes of this section, a private nonprofit institution,
a private for-profit institution, or a public institution submits a
materially complete application if it submits a fully completed
application form designated by the Secretary supported by--
(i) A copy of the institution's State license or equivalent
document that--as of the day before the change in ownership--authorized
or will authorize the institution to provide a program of postsecondary
education in the State in which it is physically located;
(ii) A copy of the document from the institution's accrediting
association that--as of the day before the change in ownership--granted
or will grant the institution accreditation status, including approval
of any non-degree programs it offers;
(iii) Audited financial statements of the institution's two most
recently completed fiscal years that are prepared and audited in
accordance with the requirements of 34 CFR 668.23; and
(iv) Audited financial statements of the institution's new owner's
two most recently completed fiscal years that are prepared and audited
in accordance with the requirements of 34 CFR 668.23, or equivalent
information for that owner that is acceptable to the Secretary.
(h) Terms of the extension. (1) If the Secretary approves the
institution's materially complete application, the Secretary provides
the institution with a provisional Program Participation Agreement
(PPA). The provisional PPA extends the terms and conditions of the
program participation agreement that were in effect for the institution
before its change of ownership.
(2) The provisional PPA expires on the earlier of--
(i) The date on which the Secretary signs a new program
participation agreement;
(ii) The date on which the Secretary notifies the institution that
its application is denied; or
(iii) The last day of the month following the month in which the
change of ownership occurred, unless the provisions of paragraph (h)(3)
of this section apply.
(3) If the provisional PPA will expire under the provisions of
paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section, the Secretary extends the
provisional PPA on a month-to-month basis after the expiration date
described in paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section if, prior to that
expiration date, the institution provides the Secretary with--
[[Page 65673]]
(i) A ``same day'' balance sheet showing the financial position of
the institution, as of the date of the ownership change, that is
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP) published by the Financial Accounting Standards Board and
audited in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing
Standards (GAGAS) published by the U.S. General Accounting Office;
(ii) If not already provided, approval of the change of ownership
from the State in which the institution is located by the agency that
authorizes the institution to legally provide postsecondary education
in that State;
(iii) If not already provided, approval of the change of ownership
from the institution's accrediting agency; and
(iv) A default management plan unless the institution is exempt
from providing that plan under 34 CFR 668.14(b)(15).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1845-0098)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1088, and 1099c)
5. Section 600.21 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 600.21 Updating application information.
(a) Reporting requirements. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section, an eligible institution must report to the Secretary in a
manner prescribed by the Secretary no later than 10 days after the
change occurs, of any change in the following:
(1) Its name, the name of a branch, or the name of a previously
reported location.
(2) Its address, the address of a branch, or the address of a
previously reported location.
(3) Its establishment of an accredited and licensed additional
location at which it offers or will offer 50 percent or more of an
educational program if the institution wants to disburse title IV, HEA
program funds to students enrolled at that location, under the
provisions in paragraph (d) of this section.
(4) The way it measures program length (e.g., from clock hours to
credit hours, or from semester hours to quarter hours).
(5) A decrease in the level of program offering (e.g. the
institution drops its graduate programs).
(6) A person's ability to affect substantially the actions of the
institution if that person did not previously have this ability. The
Secretary considers a person to have this ability if the person--
(i) Holds alone or together with another member or members of his
or her family, at least a 25 percent ``ownership interest'' in the
institution as defined in Sec. 600.31(b);
(ii) Represents or holds, either alone or together with other
persons, under a voting trust, power of attorney, proxy, or similar
agreement at least a 25 percent ``ownership interest'' in the
institution, as defined in Sec. 600.31(b); or
(iii) Is a general partner, the chief executive officer, or chief
financial officer of the institution.
(7) The individual the institution designates under 34 CFR
668.16(b)(1) as its title IV, HEA Program administrator.
(8) The closure of a branch campus or additional location that the
institution was required to report to the Secretary.
(9) The governance of a public institution.
(b) Additional reporting from institutions owned by publicly-traded
corporations. An institution that is owned by a publicly-traded
corporation must report to the Secretary any change in the information
described in paragraph (a)(6) of this section when it notifies its
accrediting agency, but no later than 10 days after the institution
learns of the change.
(c) Secretary's response to reporting. The Secretary notifies an
institution if any reported changes affects the institution's
eligibility, and the effective date of that change.
(d) Disbursement rules related to additional locations. When an
institution must report to the Secretary about an additional location
under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the institution may not
disburse title IV, HEA funds to students at that location before it
reports to the Secretary about that location. Unless it is an
institution that must apply to the Secretary under Sec. 600.20(c)(1),
once it reports to the Secretary about that location, the institution
may disburse those funds to those students if that location is licensed
and accredited.
(e) Consequence of failure to report. An institution's failure to
inform the Secretary of a change described in paragraph (a) of this
section within the time period stated in that paragraph may result in
adverse action against the institution.
(f) Definition. The Secretary considers a member of a person's
family to be his or her--
(1) Parent, sibling, spouse or child;
(2) Spouse's parent or sibling;
(3) Child's spouse; and
(4) Sibling's spouse.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1845.0098)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1088, and 1099c)
6. Section 600.31 is amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
B. Revising paragraph (a)(1).
C. Redesignating paragraph (a)(2) as paragraph (a)(3) and adding a
new paragraph (a)(2).
D. Removing the definition of ``ownership'' in paragraph (b) and
adding, in its place, the definition of ``ownership or ownership
interest''.
E. Revising paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(6), and (c)(7).
F. Revising paragraph (d)(7).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 600.31 Change in ownership resulting in a change in control for
private nonprofit, private for-profit and public institutions.
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a
private nonprofit, private for-profit, or public institution that
undergoes a change in ownership that results in a change in control
ceases to qualify as an eligible institution upon the change in
ownership and control. A change in ownership that results in a change
in control includes any change by which a person who has or thereby
acquires an ownership interest in the entity that owns the institution
or the parent corporation of that entity, acquires or loses the ability
to control the institution.
(2) If a private nonprofit, private for-profit, or public
institution has undergone a change in ownership that results in a
change in control, the Secretary may, under the provisions of
Sec. 600.20(g) and (h), continue the institution's participation in the
title IV, HEA programs on a provisional basis, provided that the
institution submits, under the provisions of Sec. 600.20(g), a
materially complete application--
(i) No later than 10 business days after the change occurs; or
(ii) For an institution owned by a publicly-traded corporation, no
later than 10 business days after the institution knew, or should have
known of the change based upon SEC filings, that the change occurred.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Ownership or ownership interest. (1) Ownership or ownership
interest means a legal or beneficial interest in an institution or its
corporate parent, or a right to share in the profits derived from the
operation of an institution or its corporate parent.
(2) Ownership or ownership interest does not include an ownership
interest held by--
(i) A mutual fund that is regularly and publicly traded;
(ii) A U.S. institutional investor, as defined in 17 CFR 240.15a-
6(b)(7);
[[Page 65674]]
(iii) A profit-sharing plan of the institution or its corporate
parent, provided that all full-time permanent employees of the
institution or corporate parent are included in the plan; or
(iv) An Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Publicly traded corporations required to be registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). A change in ownership and
control occurs when--
(i) A person acquires such ownership and control of the corporation
so that the corporation is required to file a Form 8K with the SEC
notifying that agency of the change in control; or
(ii) (A) A person who is a controlling shareholder of the
corporation ceases to be a controlling shareholder. A controlling
shareholder is a shareholder who holds or controls through agreement
both 25 percent or more of the total outstanding voting stock of the
corporation and more shares of voting stock than any other shareholder.
A controlling shareholder for this purpose does not include a
shareholder whose sole stock ownership is held as a U.S. institutional
investor, as defined in 17 CFR 240.15a-6(b)(7), held in mutual funds,
held through a profit-sharing plan, or held in an Employee Stock
Ownership Plan (ESOP).
(B) When a change of ownership occurs as a result of paragraph
(c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, the institution may submit its most
recent quarterly financial statement as filed with the SEC, along with
copies of all other SEC filings made after the close of the fiscal year
for which a compliance audit has been submitted to the Department of
Education, instead of the ``same day'' balance sheet.
(C) If a publicly-traded institution is provisionally certified due
to a change in ownership under paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section,
and that institution experiences another change of ownership under
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, an approval of the subsequent
change in ownership does not extend the original expiration date for
the provisional certification provided that any current controlling
shareholder was listed on the change of ownership application for which
the original provisional approval was granted.
* * * * *
(6) Nonprofit institution. A nonprofit institution changes
ownership and control when a change takes place that is described in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(7) Public institution. The Secretary does not consider that a
public institution undergoes a change in ownership that results in a
change of control if there is a change in governance and the
institution after the change remains a public institution, provided--
(i) The new governing authority is in the same State as included in
the institution's program participation agreement; and
(ii) The new governing authority has acknowledged the public
institution's continued responsibilities under its program
participation agreement.
(d) * * *
(7) A change in status as a for-profit, nonprofit, or public
institution.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1845-0098)
PART 668--STUDENT ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS
7. The authority citation for part 668 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1003, 1085, 1091, 1091b, 1092,
1094, 1099c, and 1099c-1, unless otherwise noted.
8. Section 668.2(b) is amended by revising paragraphs (2)(ii) and
(iii) and adding paragraph (2)(iv) to the definition of the term
``academic year'' to read as follows:
Sec. 668.2--General definitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Academic year: * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) If an institution provides an educational program using a
semester, trimester, or quarter system, or in clock hours, the
Secretary considers that the institution provides one week of
instructional time in that program during any week the institution
provides for that program--
(A) At least one day of regularly scheduled instruction or
examinations; or
(B) After the last scheduled day of classes for a term, at least
one day of study for initial examinations.
(iii) If an institution provides an educational program using
credit hours but not a semester, trimester, or quarter system, the
Secretary considers that the institution provides one week of
instructional time in that program during any week the institution
provides for that program--
(A) At least 12 hours of regularly scheduled instruction or
examinations; or
(B) After the last scheduled day of classes for a payment period,
at least 12 hours of study for final examinations.
(iv) Instructional time does not include any vacation periods,
homework, or periods of orientation or counseling.
9. A new Sec. 668.5 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 668.5 Written arrangements to provide educational programs.
(a) Written arrangements between eligible institutions. If an
eligible institution enters into a written arrangement with another
eligible institution, or with a consortium of eligible institutions,
under which the other eligible institution or consortium provides all
or part of the educational program of students enrolled in the former
institution, the Secretary considers that educational program to be an
eligible program if it otherwise satisfies the requirements of
Sec. 668.8.
(b) Written arrangements for study-abroad. Under a study abroad
program, if an eligible institution enters into a written arrangement
with a foreign institution, or an organization acting on behalf of a
foreign institution, under which the foreign institution provides part
of the educational program of students enrolled in the eligible
institution, the Secretary considers that educational program to be an
eligible program if it otherwise satisfies the requirements of
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section.
(c) Written arrangements between an eligible institution and an
ineligible institution or organization. If an eligible institution
enters into a written arrangement with an institution or organization
that is not an eligible institution under which the ineligible
institution or organization provides part of the educational program of
students enrolled in the eligible institution, the Secretary considers
that educational program to be an eligible program if--
(1) The ineligible institution or organization has not had its
eligibility to participate in the title IV, HEA programs terminated by
the Secretary, or has not voluntarily withdrawn from participation in
those programs under a termination, show-cause, suspension, or similar
type proceeding initiated by the institution's State licensing agency,
accrediting agency, guarantor, or by the Secretary;
(2) The educational program otherwise satisfies the requirements of
Sec. 668.8; and
(3)(i) The ineligible institution or organization provides not more
than 25 percent of the educational program; or
[[Page 65675]]
(ii)(A) The ineligible institution or organization provides more
than 25 percent but not more than 50 percent of the educational
program;
(B) The eligible institution and the ineligible institution or
organization are not owned or controlled by the same individual,
partnership, or corporation; and
(C) The eligible institution's accrediting agency, or if the
institution is a public postsecondary vocational educational
institution, the State agency listed in the Federal Register in
accordance with 34 CFR part 603, has specifically determined that the
institution's arrangement meets the agency's standards for the
contracting out of educational services.
(d) Administration of title IV, HEA programs. (1) If an institution
enters into a written arrangement as described in paragraph (a), (b),
or (c) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section, the institution at which the student is enrolled as a regular
student must determine the student's eligibility for title IV, HEA
program funds, and must calculate and disburse those funds to that
student.
(2) In the case of a written arrangement between eligible
institutions, the institutions may agree in writing to have any
eligible institution in the written arrangement make those calculations
and disbursements, and the Secretary does not consider that institution
to be a third-party servicer for that arrangement.
(3) The institution that calculates and disburses a student's title
IV, HEA program assistance under paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this
section must--
(i) Take into account all the hours in which the student enrolls at
each institution that apply to the student's degree or certificate when
determining the student's enrollment status and cost of attendance; and
(ii) Maintain all records regarding the student's eligibility for and
receipt of title IV, HEA program funds.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1094)
10. Section 668.8 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3) and
(b)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 668.8 Eligible program.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3)(i) If an institution provides an educational program using a
semester, trimester, or quarter system, or in clock hours, the
Secretary considers that the institution provides one week of
instructional time in that program during any week the institution
provides--
(A) At least one day of regularly scheduled instruction or
examinations; or
(B) After the last scheduled day of classes for a term, at least
one day of study for final examinations.
(ii) If an institution provides an educational program using credit
hours but not a semester, trimester, or quarter system, the Secretary
considers that the institution provides one week of instructional time
in that program during any week the institution provides--
(A) At least 12 hours of regularly scheduled instruction or
examinations; or
(B) After the last scheduled day of classes for a payment period,
at least 12 hours of study for final examinations.
(4) Instructional time does not include any vacation periods,
homework, or periods of orientation or counseling.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1845-0537)
Sec. 668.12 [Removed and reserved]
11. Section 668.12 is removed and reserved.
12. Section 668.13 is amended by revising paragraph (a) read as
follows:
Sec. 668.13 Certification procedures.
(a) Requirements for certification. (1) The Secretary certifies an
institution to participate in the title IV, HEA programs if the
institution qualifies as an eligible institution under 34 CFR part 600,
meets the standards of this subpart and 34 CFR part 668, subpart L, and
satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if an
institution wishes to participate for the first time in the title IV,
HEA programs or has undergone a change in ownership that results in a
change in control as described in 34 CFR 600.31, the institution must
require the following individuals to complete title IV, HEA program
training provided or approved by the Secretary no later than 12 months
after the institution executes its program participation agreement
under Sec. 668.14:
(i) The individual the institution designates under
Sec. 668.16(b)(1) as its title IV, HEA program administrator.
(ii) The institution's chief administrator or a high level
institutional official the chief administrator designates.
(3)(i) An institution may request the Secretary to waive the
training requirement for any individual described in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section.
(ii) When the Secretary receives a waiver request under paragraph
(a)(3)(i) of this section, the Secretary may grant or deny the waiver,
require another institutional official to take the training, or require
alternative training.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1845-0537)
13. Section 668.19 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 668.19 Financial aid history.
(a) Before an institution may disburse title IV, HEA program funds
to a student who previously attended another eligible institution, the
institution must use information it obtains from the Secretary, through
the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) or its successor system,
to determine--
(1) Whether the student is in default on any title IV, HEA program
loan;
(2) Whether the student owes an overpayment on any title IV, HEA
program grant or Federal Perkins Loan;
(3) For the award year for which a Federal Pell Grant is requested,
the student's scheduled Federal Pell Grant and the amount of Federal
Pell Grant funds disbursed to the student;
(4) The outstanding principal balance of loans made to the student
under each of the title IV, HEA loan programs; and
(5) For the academic year for which title IV, HEA aid is requested,
the amount of, and period of enrollment for, loans made to the student
under each of the title IV, HEA loan programs.
(b)(1) If a student transfers from one institution to another
institution during the same award year, the institution to which the
student transfers must request from the Secretary, through NSLDS,
updated information about that student so it can make the
determinations required under paragraph (a) of this section; and
(2) The institution may not make a disbursement to that student for
seven days following its request, unless it receives the information
from NSLDS in response to its request or obtains that information
directly by accessing NSLDS, and the information it receives allows it
to make that disbursement.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1845-0537)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1091 and 1094)
14. Section 668.165(a)(3)(ii) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 668.165 Notices and authorizations.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
[[Page 65676]]
(ii) Either in writing or electronically. If the institution sends
the notice electronically, it must confirm receipt by the student or
parent of the electronic notification and must maintain documentation
of that confirmation.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1845-0697)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1094)
* * * * *
PART 675--FEDERAL WORK-STUDY PROGRAMS
15. The authority citation for part 675 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2751-2756b, unless otherwise noted.
16. Section 675.19 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 675.19 Fiscal procedures and records.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) An institution must follow the record retention and examination
provisions in this part and in 34 CFR 668.24.
(2) The institution must also establish and maintain program and
fiscal records that--
(i) Include a certification by the student's supervisor, an
official of the institution or off-campus agency, that each student has
worked and earned the amount being paid. The certification must include
or be supported by, for students paid on an hourly basis, a time record
showing the hours each student worked in clock time sequence, or the
total hours worked per day;
(ii) Include a payroll voucher containing sufficient information to
support all payroll disbursements;
(iii) Include a noncash contribution record to document any payment
of the institution's share of the student's earnings in the form of
services and equipment (see Sec. 675.27(a)); and
(iv) Are reconciled at least monthly.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1845-0535)
* * * * *
PART 690--FEDERAL PELL GRANT PROGRAM
17. The authority citation for part 690 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 690.9 [Removed]
18. Section 690.9 is removed.
19. Section 690.75 is amended by removing the words ``financial aid
transcript'' in paragraph (a); by removing the reference to ``34 CFR
668.7'' in paragraph (a)(1) and adding, in its place, ``34 CFR part
668, subpart C''; and by revising the OMB control number to read as
follows:
Sec. 690.75 Determination of eligibility for payment.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1845-0681)
[FR Doc. 00-27894 Filed 10-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P