Federal Student Aid Programs, 62014-62034 [E7-21083]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 211 (Thursday, November 1, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62014-62034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21083]



[[Page 62013]]

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

Part III





Department of Education





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



34 CFR Parts 668, 674, 676 et al.



Federal Student Aid Programs; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 211 / Thursday, November 1, 2007 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 62014]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Parts 668, 674, 676, 682, 685, 690, and 691

[Docket ID ED-2007-OPE-0134]
RIN 1840-AC91


Federal Student Aid Programs

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulations on the Student Assistance 
General Provisions; Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins Loan) Program; 
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) Program; 
Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program; William D. Ford Federal 
Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program; Federal Pell Grant (Pell Grant) 
Program; Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) Program; and National 
Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant (National SMART 
Grant) Program. The regulations reduce administrative burden for 
program participants, provide benefits to students and borrowers, and 
protect taxpayers' interests.

DATES: Effective Date: These regulations are effective July 1, 2008.
    Implementation Date: The Secretary has determined, in accordance 
with section 482(c)(2)(A) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1089(c)(2)(A)), that institutions, lenders, 
guaranty agencies, and loan servicers that administer Title IV, HEA 
programs may, at their discretion, choose to implement all provisions 
of these final regulations on or after November 1, 2007. For further 
information, see the section entitled Implementation Date of These 
Regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Belton, U.S. Department of 
Education, 1990 K Street, NW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20006-8502. 
Telephone: (202) 502-7821 or via the Internet at: 
Michelle.Belton@ed.gov.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may 
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed in this section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 8, 2007, the Secretary published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Student Assistance General 
Provisions, Perkins Loan Program, FSEOG Program, FFEL Program, Direct 
Loan Program, Pell Grant Program, ACG Program, and National SMART Grant 
Program in the Federal Register (72 FR 44620).
    In the preamble to the NPRM, the Secretary discussed on pages 44621 
through 44635 the major changes proposed in that document to strengthen 
and improve the administration of the Federal student financial aid 
programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
as amended (HEA). These include the following:
     Amending Sec.  668.2 to add a definition for 
``professional degree'' and to harmonize and consolidate definitions 
for ``full-time student,'' ``graduate or professional student,'' 
``half-time student,'' ``three-quarter time student,'' and 
``undergraduate student.''
     Amending Sec. Sec.  668.4, 668.22, 668.164, 682.200, 
682.604, and 685.301 to align disbursements, with a few exceptions, for 
all Title IV grant and loan programs on a payment period basis.
     Amending Sec.  668.10 to define ``independent study'' as a 
course of study with predefined objectives where a student works with a 
faculty member to decide how those objectives will be met.
     Amending Sec. Sec.  668.21, 682.604, and 685.303 to 
consolidate all requirements addressing the treatment of Title IV funds 
(except Federal Work Study) when a student does not begin attendance in 
a payment period or period of enrollment by moving the requirements for 
FFEL and Direct Loan funds from Sec. Sec.  682.604 and 685.303, 
respectively, to Sec.  668.21.
     Amending Sec.  668.22 to allow institutions to make a 
direct disbursement of any Title IV grant funds that make up a post-
withdrawal disbursement without notifying a student and obtaining the 
student's permission.
     Amending Sec.  668.164 to establish timeframes for 
returning Title IV, HEA program funds that an institution attempts to 
disburse directly to a student or parent, but the student or parent 
does not receive or negotiate those funds.
     Amending Sec.  668.164 to allow institutions to pay for 
prior-year charges of up to $200.
     Amending Sec.  668.164(c) to modify the provisions for 
issuing a check and add new provisions expanding the use of electronic 
funds transfers (EFTs) to bank accounts that underlie stored-value 
cards and other transaction devices.
     Amending Sec.  668.164(g) to extend the period within 
which an institution is allowed to make a late disbursement from 120 to 
180 days and to eliminate an institution's ability to request funds 
after that period expires.
     Amending Sec.  668.165(a) to require institutions to 
either obtain affirmative confirmation from a student prior to 
disbursing a loan or notify a student no earlier than 30 days before, 
but no later than seven days after crediting a student's account with 
loan proceeds, and give students 30 days to cancel all or a portion of 
the loan.
     Amending Sec.  668.166 to expand the definition of excess 
cash to include Title IV, HEA program funds received from the Secretary 
that are deposited or transferred into the institution's Federal bank 
account as a result of an award cancellation, adjustment, or recovery; 
to eliminate the three percent excess cash tolerance option; and to 
simplify the provisions addressing the consequences for maintaining 
excess cash.
     Amending Sec. Sec.  674.16 and 676.16 to eliminate the 
single disbursement provisions that currently exist in the Perkins Loan 
and FSEOG programs.
     Amending Sec. Sec.  682.603 and 685.301 to allow 
institutions that use credit hours with terms that are at least nine 
weeks and substantially equal in length to make a full loan for a 
single term; and to allow institutions that use credit hours without 
terms or without terms that are substantially equal in length with no 
term less than nine weeks in length, or that use clock hours to certify 
a loan for the remaining balance of the student's annual loan limit for 
the remaining portion of a program for a transfer student or a student 
who has completed one degree and will immediately begin another degree 
at the same institution.
     Amending Sec. Sec.  682.603 and 685.301 to allow students 
to progress to the next annual loan limit if they complete an academic 
year in calendar time in a nonstandard term credit hour program if the 
terms in that program are substantially equal in length and are at 
least nine weeks in length.
     Amending Sec. Sec.  690.63 and 690.66 to allow 
institutions that offer programs with semesters, trimesters, or 
quarters and have terms for different cohorts of students that start 
periodically to use the same Pell formula as that used for traditional 
programs; to amend the Pell calculation for programs using clock hours 
or credit hours without terms; and to adjust the Pell calculation for 
correspondence study programs.

[[Page 62015]]

Implementation Date of These Regulations

    Section 482(c) of the HEA requires that regulations affecting 
programs under Title IV of the HEA be published in final form by 
November 1 prior to the start of the award year (July 1) to which they 
apply. However, that section also permits the Secretary to designate 
any regulation as one that an entity subject to the regulation may 
choose to implement earlier and the conditions under which the entity 
may implement the provisions early.
    Consistent with the intent of this regulatory effort to strengthen 
and improve the administration of the Title IV, HEA programs, the 
Secretary is using the authority granted her under section 482(c) to 
designate all of the regulations included in this document for early 
implementation at the discretion of each institution, lender, guaranty 
agency, or servicer, as appropriate.

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. All proposed regulations 
must conform to agreements resulting from the negotiated rulemaking 
process unless the Secretary reopens that process or explains any 
departure from the agreements to the negotiated rulemaking 
participants.
    These regulations were published in proposed form on August 8, 
2007, in conformance with the consensus of the negotiated rulemaking 
committee. Under the committee's protocols, consensus meant that no 
member of the committee dissented from the agreed-upon language. The 
Secretary invited comments on the proposed regulations by September 7, 
and in response to the Secretary's invitation, 22 parties submitted 
comments on the proposed regulations. An analysis of the comments and 
the changes in the regulations since publication of the NPRM follows.
    We group major issues according to subject, with appropriate 
sections of the regulations referenced in parentheses. We discuss other 
substantive issues under the sections of the regulations to which they 
pertain. Generally, we do not respond to technical and other minor 
changes--and suggested changes the law does not authorize the Secretary 
to make. We also do not respond to comments pertaining to issues that 
were not within the scope of the NPRM.

General Definitions (Sec.  668.2)

    Comments: In general, commenters supported the proposed changes in 
Sec.  668.2. With regard to the definition of ``full-time student,'' 
one commenter requested that the Department not increase the number of 
clock hours required to be considered full-time as that would affect 
the amount of time a student must be enrolled to be considered part-
time.
    Discussion: These regulations do not include any provisions that 
increase the number of clock hours required for full-time students. The 
Department originally considered changing the number of clock hours 
required for a student to be considered a full-time student, but 
withdrew this proposal during the negotiated rulemaking sessions 
because this change could unfavorably affect part-time clock hour 
students.
    Change: None.
    Comments: We received comments from two institutions regarding the 
definitions of ``graduate or professional student'' and ``undergraduate 
student'' and the clarification of when a student is considered an 
undergraduate in a dual degree program. One of the commenters noted 
that this clarification is welcomed in light of the fact that ``there 
has been considerable growth in such programs, often co-mingling 
undergraduate coursework, making it difficult to determine exact 
eligibility for Title IV aid. By considering such students to be 
undergraduates for the first three years of the academic program, this 
confusion will be greatly reduced.'' The other commenter agreed with 
this regulatory change but only if institutions are allowed to use 
their own definition of academic year when determining the ``third 
year.''
    Discussion: The term ``academic year'' is defined in section 481 of 
the HEA. Generally, institutions that participate in the Title IV, HEA 
programs and measure their program length in credit hours are required 
to define their academic year as at least 30 weeks of instructional 
time during which a full-time student in an undergraduate program is 
expected to complete at least 24 semester or trimester credit hours or 
36 quarter credit hours of study. Institutions that participate in the 
Title IV, HEA programs and measure their program length in clock hours 
are required to define their academic year as at least 26 weeks of 
instructional time during which a full-time student in an undergraduate 
program is expected to complete at least 900 clock hours. However, the 
statutory purpose behind the definition of an academic year is to 
determine the minimum period of time for which we will pay a student an 
academic year's worth of financial aid. Determining ``grade level'' for 
the purpose of categorizing a student as either a graduate or 
professional student or an undergraduate student is not related to the 
issue the HEA addresses with the definition of an academic year. 
Therefore, we agree with the commenter who suggested that an 
institution can, without reference to the statutory definition of an 
academic year, define what a year is in its programs for purposes of 
determining when a student is an undergraduate student or a graduate or 
professional student.
    Change: The definition of ``graduate or professional student'' in 
Sec.  668.2 is amended by using the term ``year'' instead of ``academic 
year'' in paragraph (3). In addition, the definition of ``undergraduate 
student'' in Sec.  668.2 is similarly amended by using the term 
``year'' instead of ``academic year'' in those places that describe the 
length of a course of study or a program.
    Comment: We received one comment requesting the Department to 
consider altering the definitions for ``graduate or professional 
student'' and ``undergraduate student'' to reflect the language that is 
currently used in the Department's Federal Student Aid (FSA) Handbook 
for consistency and clarity. In particular, the commenter asked the 
Department to (1) consider adopting the definition for an 
``undergraduate student'' as it appears in the handbook, (2) use the 
term ``program'' consistently throughout the regulations, (3) change 
the term ``institution of higher education'' to ``eligible 
institution'' since the term ``institution of higher education'' is 
defined in the regulations to exclude proprietary institutions, (4) 
drop the word ``first'' in the phrases ``first professional degree'' 
and ``first degree at the baccalaureate level,'' and (5) use the term 
``mixed-degree programs'' rather than ``dual degree programs.''
    Discussion: The definition of an ``undergraduate student'' in the 
FSA Handbook is ``a student who is enrolled in a program of study that 
usually does not exceed four (and can be up to five) academic years in 
length and that is designed to lead to a degree or certificate at or 
below the baccalaureate level.'' While this definition is correct, it 
does not address certain student eligibility or program specific

[[Page 62016]]

requirements that are covered in the more comprehensive definition in 
Sec.  668.2. The definition of ``undergraduate student'' in Sec.  
668.2, which contains definitions that are relevant to all of the Title 
IV, HEA programs, was intended to incorporate requirements from the 
definition of ``undergraduate student'' currently in different program 
regulations. However, in proposing the definition of ``undergraduate 
student,'' we inadvertently omitted certain provisions currently in 
Sec. Sec.  674.2, 675.2, and 676.2. Specifically, these sections 
describe an undergraduate student as a student enrolled in a course of 
study that usually does not exceed four years, or is enrolled in a four 
or five year program designed to lead to a degree. A student enrolled 
in a program of any longer period is considered an undergraduate 
student for only the first four years of that program.
    The HEA refers to a student following a course of study, while 
institutions offer programs. A course of study refers to a student's 
particular academic path in a program. For example, a student's major 
would be considered a course of study. Program, as it appears in the 
HEA, refers to the overall bachelor's program, which includes not only 
the course of study but also any other general coursework that may be 
required by an institution.
    We understand the commenter's concerns that the term ``institution 
of higher education,'' as defined in the regulations, appears to 
exclude proprietary institutions. Additionally, this term is not used 
in the definition of undergraduate student. Therefore, to address the 
commenter's concerns and for consistency, we are removing the reference 
to an institution of higher education in the definition of graduate or 
professional student.
    We agree with the commenter's point regarding the use of the term 
``first degree at the baccalaureate level'' in paragraph (1) of the 
definition for ``undergraduate student'' and the term ``first 
professional degree.'' Because a student can be considered an 
undergraduate student when taking courses below the baccalaureate level 
even after receiving a bachelor's degree for purposes of the FFEL, 
Direct Loan, and Perkins Loan programs, the term ``first degree at the 
baccalaureate level'' in paragraph (1) will be amended. It is not 
necessary to specify whether a professional degree is a first 
professional degree for Title IV, HEA program purposes and, therefore, 
we will amend the definitions for ``graduate or professional student'' 
and ``undergraduate student.'' We will also amend the term ``first 
professional degree'' to ``professional degree'' to clarify the 
Department's intention when using this term in the regulations.
    Finally, we believe the term ``dual degree programs'' is commonly 
used in the academic community. It is more descriptive of the types of 
programs to which the definitions apply and is less confusing than the 
term ``mixed degree programs.''
    Changes: Section 668.2 is amended by removing the word ``first'' in 
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the definition for an ``undergraduate 
student'' and from paragraph (2) of the definition for ``graduate or 
professional student.'' Section 668.2 is further amended by removing 
the term ``institution of higher education'' from the definition of a 
``graduate or professional student'' and by removing the word ``first'' 
from the term ``first professional degree.'' In addition, the 
definition of ``undergraduate student'' is amended to reflect the 
omitted provisions in Sec. Sec.  674.2, 675.2, and 676.2.

Payment Periods (Sec. Sec.  668.4, 668.22, 668.164, 682.200, 682.604, 
and 685.301)

    Comments: One commenter believed that the regulatory provisions 
allowing an institution to disburse Title IV grant funds at such times 
and in such installments in each payment period as the institution 
determines best meets the student's needs should also apply to the 
disbursement of FFEL and Direct Loan funds. Along these lines, the 
commenter asked the Department to clarify that an institution may delay 
the disbursement of an FFEL or Direct Loan until after the 60 percent 
point in the payment period, or pay in two substantially equal 
installments that coincide with the beginning dates of two consecutive 
modules that the student is scheduled to attend within a standard term.
    Discussion: Nothing in the HEA or the regulations prohibits an 
institution from paying an FFEL or Direct Loan in installments during a 
payment period, provided that the disbursements are substantially equal 
and that no more than half of the loan amount for the period of 
enrollment is disbursed to the borrower prior to the mid-point of the 
period of enrollment. However, for an FFEL loan, an institution should 
confer with the lender or guaranty agency to confirm that they would 
permit such disbursements. For a Direct Loan, an institution may make 
such disbursements at the institution's discretion and does not need to 
contact the Department. The Department notes that the provisions 
allowing an institution to pay a student at such times and in such 
amounts as it determines best meet the student's needs also applies to 
Perkins Loan funds.
    The purpose of the provisions allowing an institution to disburse 
Title IV funds in installments within a payment period is to give 
institutions the ability to apportion the payment if doing so will be 
in the best interest of the student. For example, if a payment period 
is particularly long, an institution might choose to pay in multiple 
installments to ensure that a student will have funds to pay rent later 
in the payment period. However, as a general matter, Title IV funds 
must be provided to students in a timely manner to best assist them in 
paying their educational expenses. Consequently, an institution may not 
delay the disbursement of funds until after the 60 percent point, for 
example, to avoid the administrative burden of performing a Return of 
Title IV Funds calculation and the requirements that go along with it, 
or to prevent the student from having to return funds upon withdrawal.
    Change: Section 668.164(b)(1)(ii) is amended to make clear that an 
institution may disburse Perkins Loan funds, within each payment 
period, at such time and in such amounts as it determines best meets 
the student's needs.
    Comments: One commenter asked the Department to clarify any 
difference between the term ``successfully completes'' as defined in 
the NPRM for completion of a payment period in certain types of 
educational programs, and the term ``successfully completed'' as used 
in the late disbursement provisions under Sec.  668.164(g)(4)(ii). The 
commenter believes that the provision for making a late disbursement, 
which provides that an institution may not make a second or subsequent 
late disbursement of FFEL or Direct Loan funds unless the student 
successfully completed the period of enrollment for which the loan was 
intended, does not require the student to have passed the coursework 
associated with the hours in the period of enrollment. Two commenters 
suggested that the Secretary define ``standard terms,'' ``nonstandard 
terms,'' and ``substantially equal in length'' in the General 
Provisions Regulations under Sec.  668.2 so that these terms would 
apply to all of the Title IV programs.
    Discussion: The term ``successfully completes,'' or a variation of 
that term, has the same meaning for payment period purposes as it does 
for making late disbursements, i.e., the institution must consider the 
student to have passed the coursework associated with

[[Page 62017]]

the hours in the payment period or period of enrollment.
    A standard term, as specifically noted in, for example, Sec. Sec.  
668.22(a)(ii)(5) and 690.63(a)(1), is a semester, trimester, or 
quarter. By inference, a nonstandard term is something other than that. 
The Department does not believe it is necessary to add definitions of 
``standard terms'' and ``nonstandard terms'' in regulations that go 
beyond these general concepts. The only places the term ``substantially 
equal in length'' is used outside of the FFEL and Direct Loan 
regulations are where it is specifically needed in Sec. Sec.  668.4 and 
668.22 of the General Provisions regulations. The Department believes 
it is necessary to define the term in those two sections only. 
Therefore, we are adding in these final regulations in Sec.  668.2 the 
same definition of ``substantially equal in length'' that we are adding 
in Sec.  668.4.
    Change: Section 668.22(l) is amended to include a definition of the 
term ``substantially equal in length.''

Transferring to a New Program at the Same Institution (Sec.  668.4)

    Comments: One commenter asked whether the proposed regulations 
allowing a student to be considered to remain in the same payment 
period when the student transfers into a second program would apply 
when the student transfers from a Business program to an Information 
Technology (IT) program at the same institution. In this case, the 
student is continuously enrolled, the payment periods are substantially 
equal in length, and the charges are the same, but the credits from the 
Business program that the student took in that payment period do not 
transfer to the IT program.
    Discussion: The Department's response, based on these facts, is no. 
We intend that Sec.  668.4(g) will address those cases where there is 
very little change to a student's academic circumstances and the 
student is changing over to the new program in a nearly seamless 
manner. In the commenter's case, the coursework in the payment period 
the student is transferring out of would not be considered to be 
substantially similar to the coursework the student will be taking in 
the new program because none of the credits associated with that 
coursework transfer over to the new program. Therefore, the institution 
must treat the student as a withdrawal from the Business program, and 
calculate new payment periods for the student's enrollment in the IT 
program. Based on this comment, the Department believes that it would 
be beneficial to clarify Sec.  668.4(g).
    Changes: Section 668.4(g)(3) is amended to clarify that for an 
institution to consider the student to remain in the same payment 
period the credits from the payment period the student is transferring 
out of must be accepted toward the new program.

Return of Title IV Funds Calculated on a Payment Period Basis 
(Sec. Sec.  668.4 and 668.22)

    Comment: One commenter did not agree with the proposed change that 
would require the use of the payment period that ends later for Return 
of Title IV Funds calculations for a student who withdrew from a credit 
hour program that is measured in nonstandard terms that are not 
substantially equal in length, when the student received aid under both 
payment period definitions--one for Title IV grant and Perkins Loan 
funds, and one for FFEL and Direct Loan funds. The commenter noted that 
a student who received aid under both payment period definitions would 
earn a different percentage of aid than a student with the same 
withdrawal date who received aid under only the shorter of the two 
payment periods. The commenter felt that students with the same 
withdrawal date should always earn the same percentage of aid, 
irrespective of the type of programs from which the student receives 
aid.
    Discussion: As stated in the NPRM (72 FR 44626), to simplify the 
Return of Title IV Funds calculation and ease administrative burden, we 
believe that institutions should use consistent Title IV payment 
periods to the extent permitted under the HEA and regulations. However, 
as there are two payment period definitions to take into account for 
nonstandard term credit hour programs with terms that are not 
substantially equal in length, the Department sought a solution that is 
as equitable as possible without being exceedingly complicated. 
Although, as the commenter points out, a student who received aid under 
both payment period definitions would earn a different percentage of 
aid than a student with the same withdrawal date who received aid under 
only the shorter of the two payment periods, we believe the approach 
taken in these regulations is the best solution because the use of the 
shorter payment period would be substantially more complicated.
    Change: None.

Treatment of Title IV Grant and Loan Funds if a Recipient Does Not 
Begin Attendance (Sec. Sec.  668.21, 682.604, and 685.303)

    Comments: Three commenters supported the proposed regulations 
consolidating the requirements for the treatment of Title IV funds when 
a student does not begin attendance. However, two other commenters felt 
that the proposed requirement that an institution return the amount of 
FFEL and Direct Loan funds paid to the institution on behalf of the 
student was new and did not reflect current regulations.
    Two commenters suggested that regulatory language be added to 
reflect the statements in the preamble to the NPRM that (1) 
institutions would not be responsible for returning FFEL and Direct 
Loan funds that are disbursed directly to the student by the lender for 
a study-abroad program or for a student enrolled in a foreign school, 
and (2) a final demand letter must be issued to these students for such 
funds.
    One commenter believed that the timeframe for an institution to 
return Title IV funds should be as soon as possible, but no later than 
45 days after the date that the institution becomes aware that the 
student will not or has not begun attendance, rather than the proposed 
30 days, to match the timeframe in Sec.  668.22 for an institutional 
return of funds to the Title IV programs when a student withdraws.
    Discussion: The Department notes that although the proposed 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  682.604(d)(4)(ii) and 685.303(b)(3)(ii) did 
not specifically state that FFEL and Direct Loan funds paid to the 
institution on behalf of a student (i.e., parent PLUS loan funds) must 
be returned by the institution, the Department has previously 
interpreted the requirement that the institution return funds paid by 
the student to include parent PLUS loan funds. By including the phrase 
``on behalf of'' in Sec.  668.21 we intended to reflect this 
longstanding interpretation in the regulations.
    We agree with the commenters' suggestions to add regulatory 
language to address the treatment of FFEL and Direct Loan funds 
disbursed directly to the student by the lender for a study-abroad 
program or for a student enrolled in a foreign school when the student 
does not begin attendance.
    As stated in the NPRM (72 FR 44628), the Department does not 
believe that an additional 15 days in the timeframe are necessary 
because, unlike the Return of Title IV Funds requirements in Sec.  
668.22, no calculation is required to determine

[[Page 62018]]

the amount of funds an institution must return.
    Changes: Section 668.21(a)(2)(ii) is amended to make clear that an 
institution is not responsible for returning FFEL and Direct Loan funds 
that are disbursed directly to the student by the lender for a study-
abroad program or for a student enrolled in a foreign school when the 
student does not begin attendance. In addition, Sec.  668.21(a)(2)(ii) 
states that a final demand letter must be issued to students for such 
funds.

Post-Withdrawal Disbursements of Grant Funds Made Directly to a Student 
(Sec.  668.22)

    Comments: Four commenters agreed with the proposal to remove the 
requirement that an institution notify and obtain the student's 
permission prior to making a direct disbursement of any Title IV grant 
funds that make up a post-withdrawal disbursement. One commenter 
believed the change would help streamline part of a complicated 
administrative process. However, one commenter urged the Department to 
establish one timeframe for late disbursements, disbursements of Title 
IV grant funds that make up a post-withdrawal disbursement, and post-
withdrawal disbursements of Title IV loan funds. Two commenters 
believed that an institution should be required to make a direct 
disbursement of Title IV grant funds that make up a post-withdrawal 
disbursement as soon as possible, but no later than 180 days after the 
date of the institution's determination that the student withdrew, 
rather than the proposed 30 days, to match the proposed timeframe for 
making a late disbursement. One commenter felt that an institution 
should be required to make such a disbursement as soon as possible, but 
no later than 45 days after the date of the institution's determination 
that the student withdrew, rather than the proposed 30 days, to match 
the timeframe for an institutional return of funds to the Title IV 
programs when a student withdraws. The commenter stated that most 
institutions are looking at this process at the same time a Return of 
Title IV Funds calculation is being done, so the timeframe should be 
the same. Four commenters felt that the requirement for making a post-
withdrawal disbursement of Title IV loan funds should be changed to as 
soon as possible, but no later than 180 days after the date of the 
institution's determination that the student withdrew, rather than the 
existing 120 days, to match the proposed timeframe for making a late 
disbursement. Another commenter asked if it was permissible for an 
institution not to issue the direct disbursement of Title IV grant 
funds that make up a post-withdrawal disbursement if a student should 
wish not to receive it. The commenter noted that some students who plan 
to transfer to another institution may wish to use their Title IV grant 
eligibility at the new institution.
    Discussion: Although the Secretary believes that, in the vast 
majority of cases, an institution will not need 45 days from the date 
it determines that a student withdrew to make a direct disbursement of 
Title IV grant funds to a student as a post-withdrawal disbursement, 
the Secretary agrees with the comment that making the timeframe 
consistent with the 45-day timeframe for the payment of an 
institutional return of unearned Title IV funds will give institutions 
one less timeframe to take into account. For the same reason, the 
Secretary agrees with the comment that the requirement for making a 
post-withdrawal disbursement of Title IV loan funds should be changed 
to ``as soon as possible, but no later than 180 days after the date of 
the institution's determination that the student withdrew'' to match 
the timeframe for making a late disbursement. These funds are intended 
to cover educational expenses that have already occurred and must be 
provided to the student in a timely manner.
    The Secretary does not agree with the suggestion that an 
institution should have 180 days to make a direct disbursement of Title 
IV grant funds to a student as a post-withdrawal disbursement. 
Additional time is provided for an institution to make a post-
withdrawal disbursement of loan funds to allow for the required 
notification to the student, or parent in the case of a PLUS loan, and 
to receive a response. The Secretary emphasizes that an institution 
must return or disburse funds as soon as possible after determining 
that a student has withdrawn.
    An institution must be able to document that its procedures call 
for it to get post-withdrawal disbursements to its students as soon as 
possible, and that it is consistently following those procedures.
    These regulations require an institution to disburse directly to a 
student, as soon as possible, but no later than 45 days after the date 
of the institution's determination that the student withdrew, any 
amount of a post-withdrawal disbursement of grant funds that is not 
credited to the student's account. An institution may not delay its 
disbursement processes in order to ascertain whether a student wishes 
to receive the grant funds to which the student is entitled. However, 
while the institution is processing the disbursement it may, at its 
discretion, notify the student that it may be beneficial to turn down 
all or a portion of the grant funds to preserve the student's grant 
eligibility for attendance at another institution. Of course, if a 
student independently contacts the institution and declines receipt of 
a grant disbursement, the institution is not required to make the 
disbursement.
    Changes: Section 668.22(a)(5)(ii)(B)(1) is changed to require an 
institution to make a direct disbursement of Title IV grant funds to a 
student as a post-withdrawal disbursement as soon as possible, but no 
later than 45 days after the date it determines that a student 
withdrew.
    Section 668.22(a)(5)(iii)(C) is changed to require that, after 
receiving confirmation that a student, or parent in the case of a PLUS 
loan, wants a post-withdrawal disbursement of Title IV loan funds 
credited to the student's account or disbursed directly, an institution 
must make a post-withdrawal disbursement of Title IV loan funds as soon 
as possible, but no later than 180 days after the date of the 
institution's determination that the student withdrew.

Cash Management--Recovery of Unclaimed Title IV Funds (Sec.  
668.164(h))

    Comments: With regard to returning Title IV funds for a check that 
is not cashed, one commenter asked the Department to clarify (1) how 
this provision applies to Federal Work-Study (FWS) payroll checks and 
(2) the timeframes and processes for handling FWS funds. Another 
commenter from an institution suggested a one-year timeframe for 
resolving issues with unclaimed funds to coincide with the 
institution's business practice for reviewing, recovering, and 
returning Title IV funds.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that it would be helpful to 
clarify how Sec.  668.164(h) applies to FWS funds. The timeframes and 
processes for returning FWS funds are the same as those for other Title 
IV funds. However, the FWS funds that must be returned consist of only 
the Federal share of the student's payroll check or EFT payment.
    With respect to the comment suggesting that we extend to one year 
the timeframe for returning unclaimed funds, we continue to believe 
that the Federal interest is better protected and the benefits to the 
student are greater (the student's loan balance is reduced) when the 
uncashed checks or

[[Page 62019]]

undeliverable Title IV payments are returned to the Secretary or FFEL 
Program lender sooner rather than later.
    Changes: The regulations in Sec.  668.164(h) are amended (1) to 
more clearly articulate the timeframes and processes for returning 
Title IV funds and (2) to specify that only the Federal share of FWS 
funds must be returned to the Secretary.

Cash Management--Minor Prior-Year Charges (Sec.  668.164(d))

    Comments: Commenters generally agreed with the proposal to increase 
from $100 to $200 the amount of prior-year charges that may be paid 
with current-year funds. A few commenters suggested keeping the current 
provision that allows an institution to pay for more than $100 (or $200 
under the proposed regulations) of prior-year charges if this payment 
will not prevent the student from paying current educational costs. One 
of these commenters reasoned that as a student progresses through grade 
levels the combination of increases in the student's loan amount and 
the availability of ACG and SMART funds would enable the student to pay 
for both current-year and prior-year charges out of current-year funds. 
The commenter suggested that in this situation using the student's 
credit balance to pay for any prior-year charges would be more 
beneficial to the student than issuing the credit balance to the 
student.
    Discussion: As discussed in the preamble to the NPRM (72 FR 44629), 
the HEA provides that Title IV funds that a student is eligible to 
receive for an award year are intended to be used for that award year. 
The Department originally promulgated regulations allowing the use of 
current year Title IV funds to pay for minor prior-year charges 
strictly as an administrative convenience, not as a way for an 
institution to circumvent the law by maximizing a student's current-
year awards to pay for accumulated prior-year balances. In exchange for 
increasing from $100 to $200 the amount of minor prior-year charges 
that may be paid with current-year funds, the negotiated rulemaking 
committee agreed to remove the exception that allowed an institution to 
pay for more prior-year charges under certain circumstances.
    Change: None.

Cash Management--Electronic Disbursements of Title IV Funds (Sec.  
668.164(c))

    Comment: A commenter suggested expanding the proposed definition of 
``bank account'' in Sec.  668.164(c)(2) to include accounts at credit 
unions that are insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance 
Fund (NCUSIF).
    Discussion: We agree. NCUSIF is an arm of the National Credit Union 
Administration (NCUA), which is the independent Federal agency that 
charters and supervises Federal credit unions. NCUA, backed by the full 
faith and credit of the U.S. government, operates the NCUSIF.
    Changes: The definition of ``bank account'' in Sec.  668.164(c)(2) 
is amended to include accounts insured by the NCUSIF.
    Comment: One commenter suggested extending from 21 to at least 45 
days the period during which a student could pick up a check at the 
institution. The commenter stated that institutions frequently have 
outdated addresses for students and that providing more time for 
students either to pick up checks or to arrange another method of 
disbursement would be preferable to returning student checks. The 
commenter also suggested that direct payments of less than $100 be 
exempt from the check-mailing requirement.
    Discussion: As mentioned in the preamble to the NPRM (72 FR 44630), 
the cases underlying this proposed provision were ones in which an 
institution would notify a student that a credit-balance check was 
available for immediate pick-up, but there was no check produced by the 
institution. Instead, the student would be directed to a Web site where 
the student would choose to receive the credit balance in one of three 
ways: (1) By an EFT to the student's bank account, (2) by an EFT to a 
bank account opened on behalf of the student by the institution, or (3) 
by a check. We have no issue with an institution asking a student to go 
to a Web site to make a disbursement selection as long as the 
institution pays any credit balance to the student within the 14-day 
regulatory timeframes regardless of whether the student makes a 
selection, chooses not to, or simply neglects to make one. However, we 
are concerned that an institution might request and receive Title IV 
funds and credit the student's account, but not pay the credit balance 
because the student did not make a disbursement selection. The 
Department emphasizes that it is the sole responsibility of the 
institution to make a timely credit balance payment to a student. This 
provision ensures that an institution produces a check that a student 
may pick up at a specified location at the institution. If the student 
does not pick up the check within 21 days, the institution must mail it 
to the student, disburse the credit balance to the student in some 
other way, or immediately return the credit-balance funds.
    With respect to the comment about exempting direct payments of less 
than $100 from the check-mailing requirement, the commenter did not 
provide, and we do not see, any basis for an exemption.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended amending the proposed provision 
in Sec.  668.164(c)(3) under which an institution must obtain written 
affirmative consent from a student or parent to open a bank account by 
permitting the institution to obtain the student's or parent's consent 
in accordance with the Electronic Signatures in the Global and National 
Commerce Act (E-Sign Act).
    Discussion: An institution must comply with the provisions of the 
E-Sign Act irrespective of whether those provisions are referenced in 
these Title IV regulations. The negotiated rulemaking committee agreed 
to include a simple but specific consent requirement in the regulations 
instead of relying solely on the E-Sign Act, which may be interpreted 
and implemented in different ways.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested two changes to the proposed 
provision under which an institution must ensure that a student has 
convenient access to branch offices of the bank or ATMs of the bank or 
affiliated bank for the purpose of making free cash withdrawals. First, 
the commenter recommended that the term ``affiliated'' be defined to 
mean a bank under the same common ownership and control as the bank in 
which the account was opened. Second, the commenter suggested defining 
the term ``convenient access'' to require that a branch office or ATM 
of the bank in which the account was opened be located within 10 miles 
of the main campus of an institution, except for students enrolled in a 
distance education program offered by the institution.
    Discussion: The suggested definition of ``affiliated'' is too 
narrow. In the context of these regulations, the term ``affiliated'' 
means any relationship or arrangement between the bank where an account 
is opened and any other bank that permits a student to make free cash 
withdrawals from the student's accounts. With regard to convenient 
access, we agree that some geographical limits are needed, but these 
limits apply only to students who are on or near the institution's 
campus. We believe it would be unreasonable to require an institution 
to ensure that students enrolled in its distance education

[[Page 62020]]

programs have convenient access to branch offices or ATMs that offer 
free cash withdrawals regardless of where those students reside.
    Changes: Section 668.164(c)(3)(v) is amended by replacing 
``affiliated bank'' with ``another bank.'' Section 668.164(c)(3)(v) is 
amended to describe ``convenient access'' as having a branch office of 
the bank or an ATM located (1) on the institution's campus, (2) in 
institutionally-owned or operated facilities, or (3) immediately 
adjacent to and accessible from the campus, consistent with the 
definition of ``Public Property'' in Sec.  668.46(a).
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the regulations clarify that 
service providers who help institutions disburse credit-balance funds 
electronically are ``third-party servicers'' as provided in Sec.  668.2 
and, therefore, subject to annual audit and financial responsibility 
requirements. The commenter contended that a number of service 
providers do not comply with these requirements and requested that the 
Department act proactively to reduce the Federal financial risk and the 
risk posed to the institutions involved.
    Discussion: As provided under Sec.  668.23(a)(3) and (c), third-
party servicers for institutions must submit compliance audits but are 
not subject to financial standards and are not required to submit 
financial audits. If the commenter's description of service providers 
refers to banks that enter into agreements with institutions to issue 
and service stored-value cards, we have heretofore not considered the 
third-party servicer definition in Sec.  668.2 to apply to banking 
services provided to institutions.
    With regard to any information the commenter may have about any 
parties that should, but do not, comply with Title IV regulations, the 
commenter should notify the Department's Office of the Inspector 
General.
    Change: None.
    Comments: One commenter disagreed with the provision in Sec.  
668.164(c)(3), under which an institution may request, but not require 
or rely upon, the student to open a bank account. The commenter 
believed that an institution should have the flexibility to require a 
student to authorize an EFT, noting that this practice is used by many 
employers for payroll purposes.
    Discussion: The Department intended to make it easier for an 
institution to make EFT payments by removing the requirement in Sec.  
668.165(b)(1)(i) that the institution first obtain authorization to 
disburse Title IV funds to a bank account designated by the student or 
parent. The provisions proposed in Sec.  668.164(c)(3) relate to 
situations where the institution opens a bank account on behalf of the 
student (or is actively involved in opening the account) for the 
purpose of making EFT payments of Title IV funds to that account. For 
these cases only, the institution must obtain the consent of the 
student or parent before it opens the bank account. In all other cases, 
the Department agrees that an institution may establish a policy 
requiring a student to provide bank account information or open an 
account at a bank of the student's choosing, as long as this policy 
does not delay the disbursement of Title IV funds to the student. Thus, 
if a student does not provide bank account information or does not 
maintain a bank account--e.g., the student does not qualify for a bank 
account or refuses to open an account--the institution must 
nevertheless disburse the Title IV funds to the student in a timely 
manner by some other means.
    Changes: Section 668.164(c)(3) is amended to provide that an 
institution may establish a policy requiring students to provide bank 
account information or open an account at a bank of the student's 
choosing.

Cash Management--Late Disbursements (Sec.  668.164(g))

    Comment: One commenter representing a guaranty agency urged the 
Department to consider an exception appeal process under which a late 
disbursement could be made after the proposed 180-day period. The 
commenter stated that a student should not be harmed by an oversight or 
anomaly in the institution's or lender's process and offered that the 
FFEL Program guarantor could monitor and manage this exception process, 
eliminating the need for the institution to contact the Department.
    Discussion: While we appreciate the guaranty agency's offer, this 
change is not being made to respond to a workload issue. Rather, our 
experience with providing an exception process for making late 
disbursements is that institutions tend to rely on this process rather 
than implementing effective administrative controls for making timely 
disbursements. We believe that extending the timeframe from 120 days to 
180 days provides institutions, lenders, and guaranty agencies more 
than sufficient time to identify and make late disbursements to 
students who may be affected by oversight and process anomalies.
    Change: None.

Loan Cancellation Notice and Affirmative Confirmation of a Loan (Sec.  
668.165(a))

    Comments: Several commenters agreed with the flexible approach in 
the NPRM allowing an institution to either affirmatively confirm that a 
student wants a loan or comply with more stringent loan notification 
and cancellation provisions. A few commenters requested that the 
Department provide examples of an affirmative confirmation of a loan.
    Discussion: The Department would consider an affirmative 
confirmation to be a student response, either in electronic form or on 
paper, accepting the loan or loans offered by the institution. Examples 
of affirmative confirmation by a student are an award letter signed by 
the student accepting the loan award or a process whereby the student 
accesses a secure Web site to inform the institution that the student 
accepts the loan.
    Change: None.

Minimum Period for Certifying or Originating a Loan (Sec. Sec.  682.603 
and 685.301)

    Comments: Several commenters supported the proposed change allowing 
transfer students to obtain the remaining portion of their current 
annual loan limit for the remaining portion of their program or 
academic year. However, one commenter questioned how this would work in 
practice. The commenter asked whether the number of transfer credits 
accepted or the number of transfer credits earned during the 
overlapping loan period would have any bearing on the implementation of 
this proposed change. The commenter asked us to consider the example of 
a student with a loan period of 11/12/06 to 9/30/07 at a previous 
institution that transferred with 18 credits to a new institution where 
the student had a loan period of 8/15/07 to 5/25/08. The student 
received $2,000 (out of a possible $3,500) at the first institution for 
a loan period that overlapped the loan period at the second 
institution. The commenter stated that under the previous regulations 
the second institution could only provide the student, for the second 
loan period of 8/15/07 to 5/25/08, with $1,500, i.e., the difference 
between what the student could have received at the first institution 
($3,500) and what the student did receive there ($2,000). The commenter 
wondered how the second institution could award loan funds to the 
student in this example under the proposed regulations.

[[Page 62021]]

    Another commenter inquired about the proposed regulation that 
allows institutions to certify or originate new loans for students when 
they complete a degree program using a loan period of less than an 
academic year and then begin another degree program for the remainder 
of the same academic year at the same institution. The commenter 
suggested that students in non-degree programs should receive similar 
treatment. Another commenter asked whether this proposal would address 
a student who finished a bachelor's degree and immediately began a 
master's degree at the same institution in the same way that it 
addressed a student who finished an associate's degree and immediately 
began a bachelor's degree.
    Another commenter asked us to clarify whether the meaning of the 
phrase ``substantially equal in length'' in Sec. Sec.  682.603(g)(4) 
and 685.301(c)(4), is applicable to all references in Sec. Sec.  
682.603 and 685.301 where that phrase is used.
    Discussion: In the first commenter's example, a student, eligible 
for $3,500, who received a loan of $2,000 for a loan period of 11/12/06 
to 9/30/07 at one institution and who transferred with 18 credits to a 
second institution where the student would normally have a loan period 
of 8/15/07 to 5/25/08, could, under these final regulations, receive a 
loan at the second institution for the balance of the annual loan limit 
for the balance of the academic year that started at the first 
institution. Neither the number of credits transferred into the second 
institution nor the number of credits earned during the overlapping 
loan period is relevant. Thus, this student, if otherwise eligible, 
could receive a loan of $1500 for a loan period of 8/15/07 to 9/30/07. 
Note that if the overlapping loan period were sufficiently short 
(perhaps less than a month) some lenders might decline to make a loan. 
In that case, the student would not receive a loan for that short 
period of time and would end up with a new loan period starting on the 
day after the old loan period ended. After the balance of the loan 
period from the first institution ends (i.e., starting on 10/1/07), the 
student could receive a new loan for a new academic year (or for the 
remainder of the program if there were less than an academic year 
remaining in the student's program), irrespective of whether the 10/1/
07 date coincided with the start of the student's classes, as long as 
the student was enrolled and eligible at that time.
    With regard to the comment about whether a student who finished a 
bachelor's degree and immediately began a master's degree at the same 
institution would be treated in the same way as a student who finished 
an associate's degree and immediately began a bachelor's degree, we 
note that the regulations do not differentiate between types of degree 
programs. And with regard to the suggestion that students in non-degree 
programs should be treated the same way as students in degree programs 
are treated, we agree that they should be. Accordingly, all situations 
are addressed in the same manner when a student finishes one program 
for which the student's last loan was for less than an academic year 
and immediately starts another program at the same institution. That 
is, the institution may certify or originate a loan for the remainder 
of the academic year for the remaining balance of the student's annual 
loan limit at the loan level associated with the new program.
    Finally, because it would more accurately describe our intent, we 
agree with the commenter's suggestion to apply the meaning of the 
phrase ``substantially equal in length'' to all of Sec. Sec.  682.603 
and 685.301.
    Changes: Sections 682.603(f)(1)(iii) and 685.301(a)(9)(iii) are 
amended by removing the wording that restricted these regulations to 
degree programs. Also, we have clarified that the meaning of 
``substantially equal in length'' in Sec. Sec.  682.603(g)(4) and 
685.301(c)(4) is applicable to all of Sec. Sec.  682.603 and 685.301.

Annual Loan Limit Progression (Sec. Sec.  682.603 and 685.301)

    Comments: One commenter stated that a student in a nonstandard term 
credit hour program with terms that are substantially equal in length, 
where the terms are at least eight weeks in length rather than the 
proposed nine weeks in length, should progress to the next loan limit 
when the student completes an academic year in calendar time. The 
commenter noted that eight-week terms are a natural subdivision of the 
16-week standard semester used for traditional students, and should be 
treated in the same manner as standard terms.
    Another commenter stated that a student in any nonstandard term 
credit hour program with terms that are substantially equal in length, 
not just those with terms that are at least nine weeks in length, 
should progress to the next loan limit when the student completes an 
academic year in calendar time. The commenter noted that the 
disbursement requirements in the regulations published in the Federal 
Register on November 1, 2000 (65 FR 65616), with which these 
regulations are supposed to be consistent, did not make such a 
distinction. The commenter also noted that a student in a nonstandard 
term credit hour program, with terms that are substantially equal in 
length but not at least nine weeks in length, does not have to 
successfully complete a payment period to advance to the next payment 
period. The commenter suggests that the student could progress to the 
next payment period even if the student failed some or all of the 
courses in the payment period. However, under the proposed changes, the 
student who failed some or all of the courses in the payment period 
would not progress to the next annual loan limit until the student 
successfully completes the failed hours.
    One commenter asked the Department to clarify that an institution 
may certify or originate a Stafford loan increase for a student 
attending a nonstandard term program with substantially equal terms of 
the appropriate length when that student's grade level standing 
advances and that student gains eligibility for a higher Stafford 
annual loan limit during an academic year. The commenter also asked the 
Department to clarify whether an institution must prorate the FFEL or 
Direct Loan Stafford annual loan limit for a student attending an 
undergraduate program offered in nonstandard terms that are 
substantially equal in length, and of the appropriate minimum length, 
when the student is enrolled in a final period of study consisting of 
fewer terms than are in the academic year.
    Discussion: The Department proposed the nine-week minimum for 
purposes of defining when a single term loan may be made in a 
nonstandard term program with terms that are substantially equal in 
length. As noted in the preamble to the NPRM (72 FR 44632 and 44633), 
the Department believes that the minimum length should be close to the 
length of the shortest standard term, a quarter, in order to justify 
single term loan certification or origination and standard term-based 
annual loan limit progression. We do not believe that eight-week terms 
are sufficiently close to 10-week quarters for this expanded purpose.
    The commenter is correct that the requirements for completion of a 
payment period for purposes of disbursement within the loan period for 
students in nonstandard-term credit hour programs with terms that are 
substantially equal in length do not distinguish between those terms 
that are at least nine weeks in length and those that are not. For 
completion of a payment period, all students in nonstandard term credit 
hour programs with terms that are substantially equal

[[Page 62022]]

in length, irrespective of the length of those terms, are treated the 
same as students in standard term programs. That is, they do not have 
to successfully complete (i.e., pass the coursework in) a payment 
period to advance to the next payment period. However, the student who 
failed to complete the coursework in an academic year would not 
progress to the next academic year, and thus regain eligibility for the 
next annual loan limit, until the student successfully completes the 
failed hours. This restriction has historically been applied to clock 
hour programs, non-term credit hour programs, and nonstandard term 
credit hour programs. Many of these programs have tended to be shorter 
in duration and more focused on providing vocational skills. Although 
we have provided more flexibility in making loan disbursements by 
payment period for all nonstandard term credit hour programs with terms 
that are substantially equal in length within the loan period, we do 
not believe that we should extend similar flexibility to these programs 
in the area of loan certification or origination and annual loan limit 
progression. We believe doing so would result in increasing student 
loan indebtedness for students who are not making adequate progress 
toward their educational goals and who, as a result, may by at greater 
risk of dropping out and defaulting on their student loans.
    For the same reason, an institution may not certify or originate a 
FFEL or Direct Loan increase for a student attending a nonstandard term 
credit hour program with terms substantially equal in length, that are 
not at least nine weeks in length, when that student's grade level 
standing advances. That is, we would not allow a student to gain 
eligibility for a higher Stafford annual loan limit during an academic 
year in this situation. Likewise, an undergraduate student attending a 
final period of study in any nonstandard term credit hour program is 
subject to proration of the annual loan limit while enrolled in the 
defined number of terms in the program's academic year but attending 
less than the number of credit hours for that defined academic year.
    Change: None.

Processing the Borrower's Loan Proceeds and Counseling Borrowers 
(Sec. Sec.  682.604 and 685.301)

    Comment: None.
    Discussion: FFEL and Direct loans may be certified or originated 
for a single payment period (e.g., a single semester) for institutions 
that measure progress in credit hours and use a semester, trimester, or 
quarter system, or have terms that are substantially equal in length 
with no term less than nine weeks in length. Sections 682.604(c)(6)(ii) 
and 685.301(b)(3)(ii) address the delivery and disbursement of loan 
proceeds when a loan is certified or originated for a single payment 
period. Basically, loans made for a single payment period must be paid 
to the student in two installments. However, in proposing changes to 
these sections of the regulations in the NPRM, we inadvertently 
included language that would modify that basic requirement for standard 
terms and terms that are substantially equal in length with no term 
less than nine weeks in length when no change was intended for those 
terms. Currently an institution may not make the second payment of 
funds until the calendar midpoint of the loan period. The NPRM proposed 
to change that requirement to one in which the institution could not 
make the second payment of funds until the student successfully 
completes half the number of credit or clock hours and half the number 
of weeks of instructional time in the payment period. This change was 
not intended for standard terms and terms that are substantially equal 
in length with no term less than nine weeks in length and, indeed, 
would create a situation most of the time for those terms in which a 
student would not be able to receive the second half of the loan until 
the student was finished with the loan period (e.g., until the student 
was finished with the semester for which the student was borrowing 
money).
    Change: Sections 682.604(c)(6)(ii) and 685.301(b)(3)(ii) are 
amended, with respect to the required two deliveries of loan proceeds 
(FFEL) and two payments of a loan (Direct Loan) when the loan is made 
for a single term, to apply the current requirements for single 
(standard) term loans to standard terms and terms that are 
substantially equal in length with no term less than nine weeks in 
length.

Calculation of a Pell Grant (Sec. Sec.  690.63 and 690.66)

    Comment: Several commenters supported the proposed change in the 
Pell Grant calculati