Family Educational Rights and Privacy, 15574-15602 [E8-5790]
Download as PDF
15574
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 99
RIN 1855–AA05
[Docket ID ED–2008–OPEPD–0002]
Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Office of Planning, Evaluation,
and Policy Development, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to
amend the regulations governing
education records maintained by
educational agencies and institutions
under section 444 of the General
Education Provisions Act, which is also
known as the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act of 1974, as amended
(FERPA). These proposed regulations
are needed to implement amendments
to FERPA contained in the USA Patriot
Act and the Campus Sex Crimes
Prevention Act, to implement two U.S.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting
FERPA, and to make necessary changes
identified as a result of the Department’s
experience administering FERPA and
current regulations. These changes
would clarify permissible disclosures to
parents of eligible students and
conditions that apply to disclosures in
health and safety emergencies; clarify
permissible disclosures of student
identifiers as directory information;
allow disclosures to contractors and
other outside parties in connection with
the outsourcing of institutional services
and functions; revise the definitions of
attendance, disclosure, education
records, personally identifiable
information, and other key terms; clarify
permissible redisclosures by State and
Federal officials; and update
investigation and enforcement
provisions.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before May 8, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept
comments by fax or by e-mail. Please
submit your comments only one time, in
order to ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies. In addition, please
include the Docket ID at the top of your
comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Under
‘‘Search Documents’’ go to ‘‘Optional
Step 2’’ and select ‘‘Department of
Education’’ from the agency drop-down
menu; then click ‘‘Submit.’’ In the
Docket ID column, select ED–2008–
OPEPD–0002 to add or view public
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
comments and to view supporting and
related materials available
electronically. Information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions
for submitting comments, accessing
documents, and viewing the docket after
the close of the comment period, is
available through the site’s ‘‘User Tips’’
link.
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or
Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver
your comments about these proposed
regulations, address them to LeRoy S.
Rooker, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room
6W243, Washington, DC 20202–5920.
Privacy Note: The Department’s policy for
comments received from members of the
public (including those comments submitted
by mail, commercial delivery, or hand
delivery) is to make these submissions
available for public viewing in their entirety
on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters
should be careful to include in their
comments only information that they wish to
make publicly available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frances Moran, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
room 6W243, Washington, DC 20202–
8250. Telephone: (202) 260–3887.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), you may call
the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–
800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities may
obtain this document in an alternative
format (e.g., Braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on
request to the contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Invitation To Comment
We invite you to submit comments
and recommendations regarding these
proposed regulations. To ensure that
your comments have maximum effect in
developing the final regulations, we
urge you to identify clearly the specific
section or sections of the proposed
regulations that each of your comments
addresses and to arrange your comments
in the same order as the proposed
regulations.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866
and its overall requirement of reducing
regulatory burden that might result from
these proposed regulations. Please let us
know of any further opportunities we
should take to reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient
administration of the program.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
about these proposed regulations in
room 6W243, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC, between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern
time, Monday through Friday of each
week except Federal holidays. Public
comments may also be inspected at
www.regulations.gov.
Assistance to Individuals With
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record
On request, we will supply an
appropriate aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for these proposed regulations. If
you want to schedule an appointment
for this type of aid, please contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Background
These proposed regulations would
implement section 507 of the Uniting
and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required
to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
(USA Patriot Act) of 2001 (Pub. L. 107–
56), enacted Oct. 26, 2001, and the
Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act,
section 1601(d) of the Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act
of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–386), enacted Oct.
28, 2000, both of which amended
FERPA. The proposed regulations also
would implement the U.S. Supreme
Court’s decisions in Owasso
Independent School Dist. No. I–011 v.
Falvo, 534 U.S. 426 (2002) (Owasso) and
Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273
(2002) (Gonzaga). Finally, the proposed
regulations respond to changes in
information technology and address
other issues identified through the
Department’s experience administering
FERPA, including the need to clarify
how postsecondary institutions may
share information with parents and
other parties in light of the tragic events
at Virginia Tech in April 2007. The
Department has developed these
proposed regulations in accordance
with its ‘‘Principles for Regulating,’’
which are intended to ensure that the
Department regulates in the most
flexible, equitable, and least
burdensome way possible. These
proposed regulations seek to provide the
greatest flexibility to State and local
governments and schools while
ensuring that personally identifiable
information about students remains
protected from unauthorized disclosure.
Technical Corrections
The proposed regulations correct
§ 99.33(e) by adding the statutory
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
language ‘‘outside the educational
agency or institution’’ after the words
‘‘third party’’ in the first sentence. They
also correct an error in the section
number cited in § 99.34(a)(1)(ii).
Significant Proposed Regulations
We discuss substantive issues under
the sections of the proposed regulations
to which they pertain. Generally, we do
not address proposed regulatory
provisions that are technical or
otherwise minor in effect.
1. Definitions (§ 99.3)
Attendance
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(6) defines
the term student as any person with
respect to whom an educational agency
or institution maintains education
records or personally identifiable
information but does not include a
person who has not been in attendance
at such agency or institution. The
statute does not define attendance.
Current Regulations: As defined in the
current regulations, the term attendance
includes attendance in person or by
correspondence, and the period during
which a person is working under a
work-study program. The current
definition does not address the status of
distance learners who are taught
through the use of electronic
information and telecommunications
technologies.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations in § 99.3 would add
attendance by videoconference, satellite,
Internet, or other electronic information
and telecommunications technologies
for students who are not physically
present in the classroom.
Reasons: The proposed regulations
are needed to clarify that students who
are not physically present in the
classroom may attend an educational
agency or institution not only through
traditional correspondence courses but
through advanced electronic
information and telecommunications
technologies used for distance
education, such as videoconferencing,
satellite, and Internet-based
communications.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Directory Information
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(5), (b)(1),
and (b)(2) allows disclosure without
consent of information such as a
student’s name and address, telephone
listing, date and place of birth, major
field of study, etc., defined as directory
information, provided that specified
notice and opt out conditions have been
met.
Current Regulations: Directory
information is defined in § 99.3 as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
information contained in an education
record of a student that would not
generally be considered harmful or an
invasion of privacy if disclosed, and
includes information listed in FERPA
(e.g., a student’s name and address,
telephone listing) as well as other
information, such as a student’s
electronic mail (e-mail) address,
enrollment status, and photograph.
Current regulations do not specify
whether a student’s Social Security
Number (SSN), official student
identification (ID) number, or personal
identifier for use in electronic systems
may be designated and disclosed as
directory information.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations would provide that an
educational agency or institution may
not designate as directory information a
student’s SSN or other student ID
number. However, directory information
may include a student’s user ID or other
unique identifier used by the student to
access or communicate in electronic
systems, but only if the electronic
identifier cannot be used to gain access
to education records except when used
in conjunction with one or more factors
that authenticate the student’s identity,
such as a personal identification
number (PIN), password, or other factor
known or possessed only by the student.
Reasons: SSNs and other student ID
numbers are personal identifiers that are
typically used for identification
purposes in order to establish an
account, gain access to or confirm
private information, obtain services, etc.
The proposed regulations are needed to
ensure that educational agencies and
institutions do not disclose these
identifiers as directory information, or
include them with other personally
identifiable information that may be
disclosed as directory information,
because SSNs and other student ID
numbers can be used to impersonate the
owner of the number and obtain
information or services by fraud. The
proposed regulations are also needed to
clarify that unique personal identifiers
used for electronic communications
may be disclosed as directory
information under certain conditions.
Names and addresses are personal
identifiers (and personally identifiable
information under § 99.3) that have
always been available for disclosure as
directory information under FERPA
because they are generally known to
others and often appear in public
directories outside the school context.
(It is precisely because names and
addresses are widely available that they
may not be used to authenticate
identity, as discussed below in
connection with proposed § 99.31(c).)
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15575
SSNs and other student ID numbers are
also personal identifiers and personally
identifiable information under § 99.3.
Unlike names and addresses, SSNs and
other student ID numbers are typically
used to obtain a variety of non-public
information about an individual, such
as employment, credit, financial, health,
motor vehicle, and educational
information, that would be harmful or
an invasion of privacy if disclosed. An
SSN or other student ID number can
also be used in conjunction with
commonly available information, such
as name, address, and date of birth, to
establish fraudulent accounts and
otherwise impersonate an individual.
As a result, under the proposed
regulations, SSNs and other student ID
numbers may not be designated and
disclosed as directory information.
Educational agencies and institutions
have reported to us that in addition to
needing a traditional student ID number
(or SSN used as a student ID number),
they need to identify or assign to
students a unique electronic identifier
that can be made available publicly.
(Names are generally not appropriate for
these purposes because they may not be
unique to the population.) Unique
electronic identifiers are needed, for
example, for students to be able to use
portals or single sign-on approaches to
student information systems that
provide access to class registration,
academic records, library resources, and
other student services. Much of the
directory-based software used for these
systems, as well as protocols for
electronic collaboration by students and
teachers within and among institutions,
essentially cannot function without
making an individual’s user ID or other
electronic identifier publicly available
in these kinds of systems.
Some systems, for example, require
users to log on with their e-mail address
or other published user name or account
ID. (Note that a student’s e-mail address
was added to the regulatory definition
of directory information in the final
regulations published on July 6, 2000
(65 FR 41852, 41855). Public key
infrastructure (PKI) technology for
encryption and digital signatures also
requires wide dissemination of the
sender’s public key. These are the types
of circumstances in which educational
agencies and institutions may need to
publish or disclose a student’s unique
electronic identifier.
The proposed regulations would
permit disclosure of a student’s user ID
or other electronic identifier as directory
information, but only if the identifier
functions essentially as a name; that is,
the identifier is not used by itself to
authenticate identity and cannot be
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
15576
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
used by itself to gain access to education
records. A unique electronic identifier
disclosed as directory information may
be used to provide access to the
student’s education records, but only
when combined with other factors
known only to the authorized user
(student, parent, or school official), such
as a secret password or PIN, or some
other method to authenticate the user’s
identity and ensure that the user is, in
fact, a person authorized to access the
records.
Note that eligible students and
parents have a right under FERPA to opt
out of directory information disclosures
and refuse to allow the student’s e-mail
address, user ID or other electronic
identifier disclosed as directory
information (except as provided in
proposed § 99.37(c), discussed
elsewhere in this document). This is
similar to a decision not to participate
in an institution’s paper-based student
directory, yearbook, commencement
program, etc. In these cases, the student
or parent will not be able to take
advantage of the services, such as
portals for class registration, academic
records, etc., provided solely through
the electronic communications or
software that require public disclosure
of the student’s unique electronic
identifier.
Disclosure
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1) and
(b)(2) provides that an educational
agency or institution subject to FERPA
may not have a policy or practice of
releasing, permitting the release of, or
providing access to personally
identifiable information from education
records without prior written consent.
Current Regulations: The regulations
in § 99.3 define the term disclosure to
mean permitting access to or the release,
transfer, or other communication of
personally identifiable information from
education records to any party by any
means. The regulations do not address
issues relating to the return of records
to the party that provided or created
them.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations would exclude from the
definition of disclosure the release or
return of an education record, or
personally identifiable information from
an education record, to the party
identified as the party that provided or
created the record. This would allow an
educational agency or institution
(School B) to send a transcript, letter of
recommendation, or other record that
appears to have been falsified back to
the institution or school official
identified as the creator or sender of the
record (School A) for confirmation of its
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
status as an authentic record. School A
may confirm or deny that the record is
accurate and send the correct version
back to School B under § 99.31(a)(2),
which allows an institution to disclose
education records without prior written
consent to an institution in which the
student seeks or intends to enroll, or is
already enrolled.
The proposed regulations would also
permit a State or local educational
authority or other entity to redisclose
education records or personally
identifiable information from education
records, without consent, to the school
district, institution, or other party that
provided the records or information.
Reasons: School officials have
reported to the Department that they are
receiving with more frequency what
appear to be falsified transcripts, letters
of recommendation, and other
information about students from
educational agencies and institutions.
The proposed amendment is needed to
verify the accuracy of this type of
information and to ensure that the
privacy protections in FERPA are not
used to shield or prevent detection of
fraud.
Several State educational agencies
(SEAs) that maintain consolidated
student records systems have also
expressed uncertainty whether they may
allow a local school district to obtain
access to personally identifiable
information from education records
provided to the SEA by that district. The
amendment is needed to clarify that
SEAs and other parties that maintain
education records provided by school
districts and other educational agencies
and institutions may allow a party to
obtain access to the specific records and
information that the party provided to
the consolidated student records
system.
Education Records
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)
provides a broad, general definition of
education records that includes all
records that are directly related to a
student and maintained by an
educational agency or institution.
Student, in turn, is defined in 20 U.S.C.
1232g(a)(6) to exclude individuals who
have not been in attendance at the
agency or institution.
Current Regulations: The definition of
education records in § 99.3 excludes
records that only contain information
about an individual after he or she is no
longer a student.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations would clarify that, with
respect to former students, the term
education records excludes records that
are created or received by the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
educational agency or institution after
an individual is no longer a student in
attendance and are not directly related
to the individual’s attendance as a
student.
Reasons: Institutions have told us that
there is some confusion about the
provision in the definition of education
records that excludes certain alumni
records from the definition. Some
schools have mistakenly interpreted this
provision to mean that any record
created or received after a student is no
longer enrolled is not an education
record under FERPA. The proposed
regulations are needed to clarify that the
exclusion is intended to cover records
that concern an individual or events
that occur after the individual is no
longer a student in attendance, such as
alumni activities. The exclusion is not
intended to cover records that are
created and matters that occur after an
individual is no longer in attendance
but that are directly related to his or her
previous attendance as a student, such
as a settlement agreement that concerns
matters that arose while the individual
was in attendance as a student.
Statute: The statute does not address
peer-grading practices in relation to
FERPA requirements.
Current Regulations: The definition of
education records includes records that
are maintained by an educational
agency or institution, or a party acting
for the educational agency or
institution, but does not provide any
guidance on the status of student-graded
tests and assignments before they have
been collected and recorded by a
teacher.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
regulations in § 99.3 would clarify that
peer-graded papers that have not been
collected and recorded by a teacher are
not considered maintained by an
educational agency or institution and,
therefore, are not education records
under FERPA.
Reasons: The proposed regulations
are needed to implement the U.S.
Supreme Court’s decision on peergraded papers in Owasso. ‘‘Peergrading’’ refers to a common
educational practice in which students
exchange and grade one another’s
papers and then either call out the grade
or turn in the work to the teacher for
recordation. In Owasso, the Court held
that this practice does not violate
FERPA because ‘‘the grades on students’
papers would not be covered under
FERPA at least until the teacher has
collected them and recorded them in his
or her grade book.’’ Owasso, 534 U.S. at
436.
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Personally Identifiable Information
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1) and
(b)(2) provide that an educational
agency or institution may not have a
policy or practice of permitting the
release of or providing access to
education records or any personally
identifiable information other than
directory information in education
records without prior written consent
except in accordance with statutory
exceptions.
Current Regulations: The term
personally identifiable information is
defined in § 99.3 to include the
student’s name and other personal
identifiers, such as the student’s social
security number or student number.
Current regulations also include indirect
identifiers, such as the name of the
student’s parent or other family
members; the address of the student or
the student’s family; and personal
characteristics or other information that
would make the student’s identity easily
traceable.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations would add biometric record
to the list of personal identifiers and
add other indirect identifiers, such as
date and place of birth and mother’s
maiden name, to the list of personally
identifiable information. The
regulations would remove language
about personal characteristics and other
information that would make the
student’s identity easily traceable and
provide instead that personally
identifiable information includes other
information that, alone or in
combination, is linked or linkable to a
specific student that would allow a
reasonable person in the school or its
community, who does not have personal
knowledge of the relevant
circumstances, to identify the student
with reasonable certainty. Personally
identifiable information would also
include information requested by a
person who the educational agency or
institution reasonably believes has
direct, personal knowledge of the
identity of the student to whom the
education record directly relates.
Reasons: See the discussion of
proposed regulations adding a new
§ 99.31(b) for de-identified education
records elsewhere in this document.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
State Auditor
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(C),
(b)(3), and (b)(5) allows an educational
agency or institution to disclose
personally identifiable information from
education records, without prior written
consent, to State and local educational
authorities and officials for the audit or
evaluation of Federal or State supported
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
education programs, or for the
enforcement of or compliance with
Federal legal requirements that relate to
those programs.
Current Regulations: The current
regulations do not address the
disclosure of education records to State
auditors.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations in § 99.3 would define State
auditor as a party under any branch of
government with authority and
responsibility under State law for
conducting audits. We propose to add a
new paragraph (a)(2) to § 99.35 to clarify
that State auditors that are not State or
local educational authorities may have
access to education records in
connection with an audit of Federal or
State supported education programs.
Reasons: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(3)
(section (b)(3) of the statute) allows
disclosure of education records without
consent to ‘‘State educational
authorities’’ for audit and evaluation
purposes. According to the legislative
history of FERPA, section (b)(5) of the
statute, which allows disclosure of
education records without consent to
‘‘State and local educational officials’’
for audit and evaluation purposes, was
added in 1979 to ‘‘correct an anomaly’’
in which the existing exception in
section (b)(3) was interpreted to
preclude State auditors from obtaining
records in order to conduct State audits
of local and State-supported programs.
See H.R. Rep. No. 338, 96th Cong., 1st
Sess. at 10 (1979), reprinted in 1979 U.S.
Code Cong. & Admin. News 819, 824.
The amended statutory language in
section (b)(5) is ambiguous, however,
because it does not actually mention
State auditors and, like section (b)(3),
refers only to educational officials. Over
the years several States have questioned
whether this exception includes audits
conducted by legislative branch officials
and other parties that may not be
considered educational authorities or
officials.
The regulations are needed to clarify
that State auditors may receive
personally identifiable information from
education records, without prior written
consent, even if they are not considered
State or local educational authorities or
officials, provided that they are auditing
a Federal or State supported education
program. We are interested in receiving
comments about whether the definition
needs to cover local auditors as well.
The exception for disclosure of
education records to State auditors is
narrowly limited to audits (defined in
proposed § 99.35 as testing compliance
with applicable laws, regulations, and
standards) and does not include the
broader concept of evaluations, for
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15577
which disclosure of education records
remains limited to educational
authorities or officials.
2. Disclosures to Parents of Eligible
Students (§§ 99.5, 99.36)
Section 99.5(a) (Rights of Students)
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(d) provides
that once a student reaches 18 years of
age or attends a postsecondary
institution, all rights accorded to
parents under FERPA, and the consent
required to disclose education records,
transfer from the parents to the student.
Under 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(H), an
educational agency or institution may
disclose personally identifiable
information from an education record
without meeting FERPA’s written
consent requirement to parents of a
dependent student as defined in 26
U.S.C. 152. Under 20 U.S.C. 1232g(i), an
institution of higher education may
disclose personally identifiable
information from an education record,
without meeting FERPA’s written
consent requirement, to a parent or legal
guardian of a student information
regarding the student’s violation of any
Federal, State or local law, or any rule
or policy of the institution governing the
use or possession of alcohol or a
controlled substance if the student is
under the age of 21 and the institution
determines that the student has
committed a disciplinary violation with
respect to such use or possession. Under
20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(I), an educational
agency or institution may disclose
personally identifiable information from
an education record, without meeting
FERPA’s written consent requirement,
to appropriate persons in connection
with an emergency if the knowledge of
such information is necessary to protect
the health or safety of the student or
other persons.
Current Regulations: Section 99.3
defines an eligible student as a student
who has reached 18 years of age or
attends a postsecondary institution.
Section 99.5(a) states that rights
accorded to parents, and consent
required of parents, to disclose
education records under FERPA transfer
from parents to a student when the
student meets the definition of an
eligible student.
Section 99.31(a)(8) provides that an
educational agency or institution may
disclose personally identifiable
information from education records
without consent to parents of a
dependent student as defined in section
152 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986. Under § 99.31(a)(15) written
consent is not required, regardless of
dependency status, to disclose to a
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
15578
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
parent of a student at an institution of
postsecondary education information
regarding the student’s violation of any
Federal, State or local law, or of any rule
or policy of the institution, governing
the use or possession of alcohol or a
controlled substance if the institution
determines that the student has
committed a disciplinary violation with
respect to that use or possession and the
student is under the age of 21 at the time
of the disclosure to the parent.
Section 99.31(a)(10) provides that an
educational agency or institution may
disclose personally identifiable
information from education records
without consent if the disclosure is in
connection with a health or safety
emergency under the conditions
described in § 99.36. Section 99.36
provides that an educational agency or
institution may disclose personally
identifiable information from an
education record to appropriate parties
in connection with an emergency if
knowledge of the information is
necessary to protect the health or safety
of the student or other individuals.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations in § 99.5 clarify that even
after a student has become an eligible
student, an educational agency or
institution may disclose education
records to the student’s parents, without
the consent of the eligible student, if the
student is a dependent for Federal
income tax purposes (§ 99.31(a)(8)); in
connection with a health or safety
emergency (§ 99.31(a)(10)); if the
student is under the age of 21 and has
violated an institutional rule or policy
governing the use or possession of
alcohol or a controlled substance
(§ 99.31(a)(15)); and if the disclosure
falls within any other exception to the
consent requirement in § 99.31(a) of the
regulations, such as the disclosure of
directory information or in compliance
with a court order or lawfully issued
subpoena. The proposed regulations in
§ 99.36(a) would clarify that an eligible
student’s parents are appropriate parties
to whom an educational agency or
institution may disclose personally
identifiable information from education
records without consent in a health or
safety emergency.
Reasons: The Secretary is concerned
that some institutions are under the
mistaken impression that FERPA
prevents them from providing parents
with any information about a college
student. The proposed regulations are
needed to clarify that FERPA contains
exceptions to the written consent
requirement that permit colleges and
other educational agencies and
institutions to disclose personally
identifiable information from education
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
records to parents of certain eligible
students whether or not the student
consents.
Section 99.31(a)(8) permits an
educational agency or institution to
disclose education records, without
consent, to either parent if at least one
of the parents has claimed the student
as a dependent on the parent’s most
recent tax return. Because many college
students (and 18-year-old high school
students) are tax dependents of their
parents, this provision allows these
institutions to disclose information from
education records to the students’
parents without meeting the written
consent requirements in § 99.30.
(Institutions must first determine that a
parent has claimed the student as a
dependent on the parent’s Federal
income tax return. Institutions can
determine that a parent claimed a
student as a dependent by asking the
parent to submit a copy of the parent’s
most recent Federal tax return.
Institutions can also rely on a student’s
assertion that he or she is not a
dependent unless the parent provides
contrary evidence.)
The proposed regulations are also
needed to clarify that colleges and other
institutions may disclose information
from education records to an eligible
student’s parents, without consent,
under § 99.31(a)(15) if the institution
has determined that the student has
violated Federal, State, or local law or
an institution’s rules or policies
governing alcohol or substance abuse
(provided the student is under 21 years
of age), and in connection with a health
or safety emergency under
§§ 99.31(a)(10) and 99.36 (regardless of
the student’s age) if the information is
needed to protect the health or safety of
the student or other individuals. These
exceptions apply whether or not the
student is a dependent of a parent for
tax purposes. These proposed
regulations would clarify the
Department’s policy with respect to an
agency’s or institution’s disclosure of
information from education records to
parents under the health and safety
emergency exception and do not
represent a change in the Department’s
interpretation of who may qualify as an
appropriate party under the health or
safety emergency exception to the
consent requirement. While institutions
may choose to follow a policy of not
disclosing education records to parents
of eligible students in these
circumstances, FERPA does not
mandate such a policy.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
3. Authorized Disclosure of Education
Records Without Prior Written Consent
(§ 99.31)
Section 99.31(a)(1) (School Officials)
Outsourcing
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(A)
defines education records to include
records maintained by an educational
agency or institution or by ‘‘a person
acting for’’ the agency or institution.
Under 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(A), an
educational agency or institution may
allow teachers and other school officials
within the institution or agency,
without prior written consent, to obtain
access to education records if the
institution or agency has determined
that they have legitimate educational
interests in the information.
Current Regulations: Section
99.31(a)(1) allows disclosure of
personally identifiable information from
education records without consent to
school officials, including teachers,
within the agency or institution if the
educational agency or institution has
determined that they have legitimate
educational interests in the information.
An educational agency or institution
that discloses information under this
exception must specify in its annual
notification of FERPA rights under
§ 99.7(a)(3)(iii) the criteria it uses to
determine who constitutes a school
official and what constitutes legitimate
educational interests. The
recordkeeping requirements in
§ 99.32(d) do not apply to disclosures to
school officials with legitimate
educational interests. Current
regulations do not address disclosure of
education records without consent to
contractors, consultants, volunteers, and
other outside parties providing
institutional services and functions or
otherwise acting for an agency or
institution.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations in § 99.31(a)(1)(i)(B) would
expand the school official exception to
include contractors, consultants,
volunteers, and other outside parties to
whom an educational agency or
institution has outsourced institutional
services or functions that it would
otherwise use employees to perform.
The outside party who obtains access to
education records without consent must
be under the direct control of the agency
or institution and subject to the same
conditions governing the use and
redisclosure of education records that
apply to other school officials under
§ 99.33(a) of the regulations. These
proposed regulations supersede
previous technical assistance guidance
issued by the Family Policy Compliance
Office (Office) regarding disclosure of
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
education records without consent to
parties acting for an educational agency
or institution.
Educational agencies and institutions
that outsource institutional services and
functions must comply with the annual
FERPA notification requirements under
the current regulations in § 99.7(a)(3)(iii)
by specifying their contractors,
consultants, and volunteers as school
officials retained to provide various
institutional services and functions.
Failure to comply with the notice
requirements for school officials in
§ 99.7(a)(3)(iii) is not excused by
recording the disclosure under § 99.32.
(We note that under current regulations
disclosures to school officials under
§ 99.31(a)(1) are specifically excluded
from the recordation requirements
under § 99.32(d).) As a result, an
educational agency or institution that
has not included contractors and other
outside service providers as school
officials with legitimate educational
interests in its annual FERPA
notification may not disclose any
personally identifiable information from
education records to these parties until
it has complied with the notice
requirements in § 99.7(a)(3)(iii).
Educational agencies and institutions
are responsible for their outside service
providers’ failures to comply with
applicable FERPA requirements. The
agency or institution must ensure that
the outside party does not use or allow
anyone to obtain access to personally
identifiable information from education
records except in strict accordance with
the requirements established by the
educational agency or institution that
discloses the information.
All outside parties serving as school
officials are subject to FERPA’s
restrictions on the use and redisclosure
of personally identifiable information
from education records. These
restrictions include current provisions
in § 99.33(a), which requires an
educational agency or institution that
discloses personally identifiable
information from education records to
do so only on the condition that the
recipient, including a teacher or other
school official, will use the information
only for the purpose for which the
disclosure was made and will not
redisclose the information to any other
party without the prior consent of the
parent or eligible student unless the
educational agency or institution has
authorized the redisclosure under a
FERPA exception and the agency or
institution records the subsequent
disclosure in accordance with the
requirements in § 99.32(b).
For example, under the proposed
regulations, a party that contracts with
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
an educational agency or institution to
provide enrollment and degree
verification services must ensure that
only individuals with legitimate
educational interests obtain access to
personally identifiable information from
education records maintained on behalf
of the agency or institution. In
accordance with current regulations at
§ 99.33(b), a contractor may not
redisclose personally identifiable
information without prior written
consent unless the educational agency
or institution has authorized the
redisclosure under a FERPA exception
and the agency or institution records the
subsequent disclosure in accordance
with the requirements in § 99.32(b). Like
other school officials, contractors and
other outside parties who provide
institutional services may not decide
unilaterally to redisclose personally
identifiable information from education
records, even in circumstances that
would comply with an exception in
§ 99.31(a).
Additionally, records directly related
to a student that are maintained by a
party acting for an educational agency
or institution are education records
subject to all FERPA requirements. This
includes any new student records
created under an outsourcing agreement
that are maintained by the outside
service provider.
Reasons: The proposed regulations
are needed to resolve uncertainty about
the specific conditions under which
educational agencies and institutions
may disclose personally identifiable
information from education records,
without prior written consent, to
contractors, consultants, volunteers, and
other outside parties performing
institutional services or functions.
While there is no explicit statutory
exception to the prior written consent
requirement for disclosures to
contractors and other non-employees to
whom an educational agency or
institution has outsourced services, we
note that the statutory definition of
education records protects records that
are maintained by a party acting for the
agency or institution. See 20 U.S.C.
1232g(a)(4)(A)(ii). Indeed, the Joint
Statement in Explanation of Buckley/
Pell Amendment (120 Cong. Rec.
S39862, Dec. 13, 1974) refers
specifically to materials that are
maintained by a school ‘‘or by one of its
agents’’ when describing the meaning of
the new term education records in the
December 1974 amendments to the
statute.
The Department has long recognized
in guidance that FERPA does not
prevent educational agencies and
institutions from outsourcing
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15579
institutional services and functions and
disclosing education records to
contractors and other outside parties
performing those services and functions
in appropriate circumstances, such as
for legal advice; debt collection;
transcript distribution; fundraising and
alumni communications; development
and management of information
systems; and degree and enrollment
verification. The Secretary wishes to
clarify and define the scope of this
practice to avoid further confusion and
prevent weakening of FERPA’s privacy
protections because of uncertainty about
the requirements for making these kinds
of disclosures.
One of the most frequently used
exceptions to the prior written consent
requirement allows teachers and other
school officials to obtain access to
education records provided the
educational agency or institution has
determined that the school official has
legitimate educational interests in the
information. This exception covers not
only teachers and principals, but also
school counselors, registrars,
admissions personnel, attorneys,
accountants, human resource staff,
information systems specialists, and
designated support and clerical
personnel when they need access to
personally identifiable information from
education records in order to perform
their official functions and duties for
their employer. As noted above, an
educational agency or institution that
allows school officials to obtain access
to education records under this
exception must, under § 99.7(a)(3),
include in its annual notification of
FERPA rights a specification of its
criteria for determining who constitutes
a school official and what constitutes
legitimate educational interests under
§ 99.31(a)(1). Disclosures to school
officials under current regulations are
subject to the restrictions on the use and
redisclosure of information in § 99.33
but are exempt from the FERPA
recordkeeping requirements in § 99.32.
The proposed regulations are
included with the exception for school
officials in § 99.31(a)(1) because we
believe that disclosures made for
contract, volunteer, and other
outsourced services and functions
should be subject to the same conditions
that would apply if the outside party
were, in fact, providing institutional
services or functions as an employee or
officer of the educational agency or
institution. In particular, the outside
party must be under the direct control
of the agency or institution with respect
to the maintenance and use of
personally identifiable information from
education records. The outside party
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
15580
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
must also perform the type of
institutional services or functions for
which the agency or institution would
otherwise use its own employees. For
example, an institution may disclose
education records without consent
under this provision to an outside party
retained to provide enrollment
verification services to student loan
holders because the institution would
otherwise have to use its own
employees to conduct the required
verifications. In contrast, an institution
may not use this provision to disclose
education records, without consent, to a
financial institution or insurance
company that provides a good student
discount on its services and needs
students’ ID numbers and grades to
verify an individual’s eligibility, even if
the institution enters into a contract
with these companies to provide the
student discount.
Access to Education Records by School
Officials
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(A)
provides that an educational agency or
institution may allow teachers and other
school officials within the agency or
institution to obtain access to education
records, without prior written consent,
if the agency or institution has
determined that the school official has
legitimate educational interests in the
information.
Current Regulations: Section
99.31(a)(1) allows an educational agency
or institution to disclose personally
identifiable information from education
records without consent to school
officials, including teachers, within the
agency or institution if the educational
agency or institution has determined
that they have legitimate educational
interests in the information. An
educational agency or institution that
discloses information under this
exception must specify in its annual
notification of FERPA rights under
§ 99.7(a)(3)(iii) the criteria it uses to
determine who constitutes a school
official and what constitutes legitimate
educational interests. Current
regulations do not specify whether the
agency or institution must ensure that
school officials obtain access to only
those education records in which they
have legitimate educational interests.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations in § 99.31(a)(1)(ii) would
require an educational agency or
institution to use reasonable methods to
ensure that teachers and other school
officials obtain access to only those
education records in which they have
legitimate educational interests. This
requirement would apply to education
records maintained in either paper or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
electronic format. Agencies and
institutions that choose not to use
physical or technological controls to
restrict a school official’s access to
education records must ensure that their
administrative policy for controlling
access to and maintenance of education
records is effective and that the agency
or institution remains in compliance
with the legitimate educational interests
requirement in § 99.31(a)(1)(i)(A).
(These proposed regulations do not
address what constitutes a legitimate
educational interest under the
regulations.)
Reasons: The proposed regulations
are needed to ensure that teachers and
other school officials only gain access to
education records in which they have a
legitimate educational interest. While
the proposed regulations apply to
records in any format (as defined in
§ 99.3), the need to ensure compliance
with the legitimate educational interest
requirement has been driven largely by
the increased use of computerized or
electronic recordkeeping systems in
which a user may have access to all
records.
Many of the smaller educational
agencies and institutions typically use a
combination of physical and
administrative methods to restrict
access by school officials to paper copy
records. For example, paper copy
records may be maintained in lockable
cabinets, desks, or rooms with
distribution of records to school officials
controlled by the teacher, registrar, or
other authorized custodian as
appropriate. With the advent of
computerized or electronic records,
particularly by the mid-size and larger
agencies and institutions, parents and
students have complained that school
officials may have unrestricted access to
the records of all students in an
institution’s or local educational
agency’s (LEA) system. Agencies and
institutions establishing or upgrading
electronic student information systems
have also expressed uncertainty about
what methods they should use to
comply with the legitimate educational
interest requirement in this new
environment.
Under the proposed regulations, an
educational agency or institution should
implement controls to protect student
records. These controls should consist
of a combination of appropriate
physical, technical, administrative, and
operational controls which will allow
access to be limited when required.
(Some examples of possible information
security controls can be found in ‘‘The
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) 800–53,
Recommended Security Controls for
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Federal Information Systems’’
(December 2007). Educational
institutions and agencies are not
required to implement the NIST 800–53
guidance, but may find it useful when
determining possible controls.) For
example, software used to access
electronic records may contain rolebased security features that allow
teachers to view only information about
students currently enrolled in their
classes. Similarly, a school principal or
registrar may maintain paper records in
locked cabinets and distribute records to
authorized officials on an as needed
basis.
An educational agency or institution
that does not use some kind of physical
or technological controls to restrict
access and leaves education records
open to all school officials may rely
instead on administrative controls, such
as an institutional policy that prohibits
teachers and other school officials from
accessing records except when they
have a legitimate educational interest.
However, an agency or institution that
forgoes physical or technological access
controls must ensure that its
administrative policy for controlling
access is effective and that it remains in
compliance with the legitimate
educational interest requirement in
§ 99.31(a)(1). In that regard, if a parent
or eligible student alleges that a school
official obtained access to a student’s
education records without a legitimate
educational interest, an agency or
institution must show that the school
official possessed a legitimate
educational interest in obtaining the
personally identifiable information from
education records maintained by the
agency or institution. An agency or
institution may wish to restrict or track
school officials who obtain access to
education records to ensure that it is in
compliance with § 99.31(a)(1)(i)(A).
The risk of unauthorized access to
education records by school officials
means the likelihood that records may
be targeted for compromise and the
harm that could result. Methods used by
an educational agency or institution to
ensure compliance with the legitimate
educational interests requirement are
considered reasonable under the
proposed regulations if they reduce the
risk of unauthorized access by school
officials to a level commensurate with
the likely threat and potential harm. The
greater the harm that would result from
unauthorized access or disclosure and
the greater the likelihood that
unauthorized access or disclosure will
occur, the more protections an agency or
institution must use to ensure that its
methods are reasonable. For example,
high risk records, such as those that
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
contain credit card information, SSNs
and other elements used for identity
theft, immunization and other health
records, certain records on special
education students, and official
transcripts and grades should generally
receive greater and more immediate
protection than medium or low risk
records, such as those containing only
publicly releasable directory
information. Methods that an
educational agency or institution should
use to reduce risk to an acceptable level
will depend on a variety of factors,
including the organization’s size and
resources. In all cases, reasonableness
depends ultimately on what are the
usual and customary good business
practices of educational agencies and
institutions, which requires ongoing
review and modification of methods and
procedures, where appropriate, as
standards and technologies continue to
change.
Section 99.31(a)(2) (Disclosure to a
School Where Student Seeks or Intends
To Enroll)
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(B)
allows an educational agency or
institution to disclose, under certain
conditions, education records to another
school or school system in which the
student seeks or intends to enroll
without obtaining the prior written
consent of a parent or eligible student.
Current Regulations: Under
§ 99.31(a)(2), an educational agency or
institution may disclose education
records, without prior written consent,
to officials of another school, school
system, or postsecondary institution
where the student seeks or intends to
enroll, provided that the agency or
institution complies with the
requirements in § 99.34(a) regarding
notification to the parent or eligible
student of the disclosure and, upon
request, provide a copy of the records
and an opportunity for a hearing under
subpart C of the regulations.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations in § 99.31(a)(2) would allow
an educational agency or institution to
disclose education records, without
consent, to another institution even after
a student has already enrolled or
transferred, and not just if the student
seeks or intends to enroll, if the
disclosure is for purposes related to the
student’s enrollment or transfer.
Reasons: The proposed amendments
are needed to resolve uncertainty about
whether consent is required to send a
student’s records to the student’s new
school after the student has already
transferred and enrolled. This proposed
exception to the consent requirement is
intended to ease administrative burdens
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
on educational agencies and institutions
by allowing them to send transcripts
and other information from education
records to schools where a student seeks
or intends to enroll without meeting the
formal consent requirements in § 99.30.
We have concluded that authority to
disclose or transfer information to a
student’s new school under this
exception does not cease automatically
the moment a student has actually
enrolled. Rather, an educational agency
or institution may transfer education
records to a student’s new school,
including a postsecondary institution, at
any point in time if the disclosure is in
connection with the student’s
enrollment in the new school.
Based on these considerations, we
have also determined that an
educational agency or institution may
update, correct, or explain information
it has disclosed to another educational
agency or institution as part of the
original disclosure under § 99.31(a)(2)
without complying with the written
consent requirements in § 99.30. That is,
a student’s previous institution is not
required to obtain prior written consent
under § 99.30 to respond to the new
institution’s request to explain the
meaning of education records sent to it
in connection with a student’s new
enrollment.
Finally, in the aftermath of the
shooting at Virginia Tech, some
questions have arisen about whether
FERPA prohibits the disclosure of
certain types of information from
students’ education records to new
schools or postsecondary institutions to
which they have applied. (Further
discussion of the tragic events that
occurred at Virginia Tech in April 2007
is included in the discussion of the
proposed amendments to § 99.36, which
appears later in this document.) Under
§ 99.31(a)(2) and § 99.34(a), FERPA
permits school officials to disclose any
and all education records, including
health and disciplinary records, to
another institution where the student
seeks or intends to enroll.
Section 99.31(a)(6) (Organizations
Conducting Studies for or on Behalf of
an Educational Agency or Institution)
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(F)
allows an educational agency or
institution to disclose personally
identifiable information from education
records, without consent, to
organizations conducting studies for or
on behalf of the agency or institution for
purposes of testing, student aid, and
improvement of instruction. The
information must be protected so that
students and their parents cannot be
identified by anyone other than
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15581
representatives of the organization that
conducts the study and must be
destroyed when no longer needed for
the study. As explained in
§ 99.31(a)(6)(iii), failure to destroy
information in accordance with this
requirement could lead to a five-year
ban on disclosure of information to that
organization.
Current Regulations: The regulations
restate the statutory language that the
study is conducted ‘‘for, or on behalf of’’
the educational agency or institution,
but do not explain what this language
means.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations require an educational
agency or institution that discloses
education records without consent
under § 99.31(a)(6) to enter into a
written agreement with the recipient
organization that specifies the purposes
of the study. The agency or institution
that discloses education records under
this exception does not have to agree
with or endorse the conclusions or
results of the study. The written
agreement must specify that information
from education records may only be
used to meet the purposes of the study
stated in the written agreement and
must contain the current restrictions on
redisclosure and destruction of
information requirements applicable to
information disclosed under this
exception.
Reasons: Research organizations have
asked for clarification about the
circumstances in which an educational
agency or institution may disclose to
them personally identifiable
information from education records
under § 99.31(a)(6)(iii), and educational
agencies and institutions have asked
whether they may provide personally
identifiable information to organizations
for research purposes without parental
consent even if the educational agency
or institution has no particular interest
in the study.
This exception to the consent
requirement is intended to allow
educational agencies and institutions to
retain the services of outside
organizations (or individuals) to
conduct studies for or on their behalf to
develop, validate, or administer
predictive tests; administer student aid
programs; or improve instruction. An
educational agency or institution need
not initiate research requests or agree
with or endorse a study’s results and
conclusions under this exception.
However, the statutory language ‘‘for, or
on behalf of’’ indicates that the
disclosing agency or institution agrees
with the purposes of the study and
retains control over the information
from education records that is disclosed.
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
15582
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
The written agreement required under
the proposed regulations will help
ensure that information from education
records is used only to meet the
purposes of the study stated in the
written agreement and that all
applicable requirements are met. (See
discussion of § 99.31(b) below regarding
disclosure of de-identified information
to independent educational
researchers.)
Section 99.31(a)(9) (USA Patriot Act)
Statute: The USA Patriot Act, Public
Law 107–56, amended FERPA by
providing a new subsection 1232g(j), 20
U.S.C. 1232g(j), that authorizes the
United States Attorney General (or
designee not lower than an Assistant
Attorney General) to apply for an ex
parte court order (an order issued by a
court without notice to an adverse
party) allowing the Attorney General (or
designee) to collect education records
from an educational agency or
institution, without the consent or
knowledge of the student or parent, that
are relevant to an investigation or
prosecution of an offense listed in 18
U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B) or an act of
domestic or international terrorism
specified in 18 U.S.C. 2331. The statute
requires the Attorney General (or
designee not lower than an Assistant
Attorney General) to certify facts in
support of the order and to retain,
disseminate, and use the records in a
manner that is consistent with
confidentiality guidelines established by
the Attorney General in consultation
with the Secretary of Education.
Agencies and institutions are not
required to record the disclosure and
cannot be held liable to anyone for
producing education records in good
faith in accordance with a court order
issued under this provision.
Current Regulations: The current
regulations do not address the
amendments made by the USA Patriot
Act.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations add new exceptions to the
written consent requirement in
§ 99.31(a)(9)(ii) and the recordkeeping
requirement in § 99.32(a) allowing
disclosure of education records without
notice in compliance with an ex parte
court order obtained by the Attorney
General (or designee) concerning
investigations or prosecutions of an
offense listed in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B)
or an act of domestic or international
terrorism defined in 18 U.S.C. 2331.
Reasons: The proposed regulations
are necessary to implement the statutory
amendment. An educational agency or
institution that is served with an ex
parte court order from the Attorney
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
General (or designee) under this
provision should ensure that the order
is facially valid, just as it does when
determining whether to comply with
other judicial orders and subpoenas
under § 99.31(a)(9). An educational
agency or institution is not, however,
required or authorized to examine the
underlying certification of facts
presented to the court in the Attorney
General’s application for the ex parte
court order.
The proposed regulations provide that
an educational agency or institution
may comply with the court order
without notice to the parent or eligible
student. (Note that § 99.31(a)(9)(ii)(B)
also allows an educational agency or
institution to disclose education records
without notice to representatives of the
Attorney General or other law
enforcement authorities who produce a
subpoena that has been issued for law
enforcement purposes and the court or
other issuing agency has ordered that
the existence or contents of the
subpoena or information furnished in
response to the subpoena not be
disclosed.)
Section 99.31(a)(16) (Registered Sex
Offenders)
Statute: The Campus Sex Crimes
Prevention Act (CSCPA), section
1601(d) of the Victims of Trafficking
and Violence Protection Act of 2000,
Public Law 106–386, amended FERPA
by adding 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(7), which
provides that educational agencies and
institutions may disclose information
concerning registered sex offenders
provided under State sex offender
registration and community notification
programs required by section 170101 of
the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law
103–322, 42 U.S.C. 14071. Section
170101 contains the Jacob Wetterling
Crimes Against Children and Sexually
Violent Offender Registration Act
(Wetterling Act).
Current Regulations: The current
regulations do not address the
disclosure of information concerning
registered sex offenders.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations add a new exception to the
consent requirement in § 99.31(a)(16)
that permits an educational agency or
institution to disclose information that
the agency or institution received under
a State community notification program
about a student who is required to
register as a sex offender in the State.
Note that nothing in FERPA or these
proposed regulations requires or
encourages an educational agency or
institution to collect or maintain
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
information about registered sex
offenders.
Reasons: The regulations implement
the CSCPA amendment to FERPA,
which allows educational agencies and
institutions to disclose information
about registered sex offenders without
consent if the information was received
through and complies with guidelines
regarding a State community
notification program issued by the U.S.
Attorney General under the Wetterling
Act. Wetterling Act guidelines issued by
the Attorney General were published in
the Federal Register on October 25,
2002 (67 FR 65598), and January 5, 1999
(64 FR 572).
The Wetterling Act sets forth
minimum national standards for sex
offender registration and community
notification programs. Under the
Wetterling Act, States must establish
programs that require sexually violent
predators (and anyone convicted of
specified criminal offenses against
minors) to register their name and
address with the appropriate State
authority where the offender lives,
works, or is enrolled as a student. States
are also required to release relevant
information necessary to protect the
public concerning persons required to
register, excluding the identity of any
victim. (This community notification
provision is commonly known as the
‘‘Megan’s Law’’ amendment to the
Wetterling Act.)
CSCPA supplemented the general
standards for sex offender registration
and community notification programs in
the Wetterling Act with provisions
specifically designed for higher
education campus communities. These
include a requirement that States collect
information about a registered offender’s
enrollment or employment at an
institution of higher education,
including any change in enrollment or
employment status at the institution,
and make this information available
promptly to a campus police
department or other appropriate law
enforcement agency having jurisdiction
where the institution is located. CSCPA
also amended the Higher Education Act
of 1965, as amended (HEA), by requiring
institutions of higher education to
advise the campus community where it
can obtain information about registered
sex offenders provided by the State
pursuant to the Wetterling Act, such as
the campus law enforcement office, a
local law enforcement agency, or a
computer network address. See 20
U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)(I) and 34 CFR
668.46(b)(12).
While the FERPA amendment was
made in the context of CSCPA’s
enhancements to registration and
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
notification requirements applicable to
the higher education community, the
Department has determined that all
educational institutions, including
elementary and secondary schools, are
covered by this amendment. The
registration and community notification
requirements apply in the State where
an offender lives, works, or is a student,
which is defined as ‘‘a person who is
enrolled on a full-time or part-time
basis, in any public or private
educational institution, including any
secondary school, trade, or professional
institution, or institution of higher
education.’’ See 42 U.S.C.
14071(a)(3)(G). Because the sex offender
registration and community notification
requirements apply broadly to students
enrolled in ‘‘any public or private
educational institution,’’ the
Department likewise interprets the
FERPA amendment to apply to all
educational agencies and institutions
subject to FERPA.
4. De-Identification of Information
(§ 99.31(b))
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1) and
(b)(2) provide that an educational
agency or institution may not have a
policy or practice of permitting the
release of or providing access to
education records, or personally
identifiable information from education
records, without prior written consent
except in accordance with statutory
exceptions.
Current Regulations: Personally
identifiable information under § 99.3
includes personal identifiers such as a
student’s name, address, and
identification numbers, as well as
personal characteristics or other
information that would make the
student’s identity easily traceable.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations would amend § 99.31(b) to
provide objective standards under
which educational agencies and
institutions may release, without
consent, education records, or
information from education records,
that has been de-identified through the
removal of all personally identifiable
information. Personally identifiable
information is defined in § 99.3 to mean
information that can be used to identify
a student, including direct identifiers,
such as the student’s name, SSN, and
biometric records, alone or combined
with other personal or identifying
information that is linked or linkable to
a specific individual, including indirect
identifiers such as the name of the
student’s parent or other family
member, the student’s or family’s
address, and the student’s date and
place of birth and mother’s maiden
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
name, that would allow a reasonable
person in the school or its community,
who does not have personal knowledge
of the relevant circumstance, to identify
the student with reasonable certainty.
The Department does not hold
educational agencies and institutions
responsible for knowing the status of all
non-educational records about students
(e.g., law enforcement or hospital
records). However, the Department
encourages educational agencies and
institutions to be sensitive to publicly
available data on students and to the
cumulative effect of disclosures of
student data. Additionally, personally
identifiable information includes
information that is requested by a
person who an agency or institution
reasonably believes has direct, personal
knowledge of the identity of the student
to whom the education record directly
relates. This is known as a targeted
request.
Reasons: Disclosure is defined in the
regulations as permitting access to or
releasing, transferring, or otherwise
communicating personally identifiable
information contained in education
records. Accordingly, there is no
‘‘disclosure’’ under FERPA when
education records are released if all
identifiers have been removed, along
with other personally identifiable
information. The proposed regulations
are needed to establish this guidance in
a definitive and legally binding
interpretation, and to provide standards
for ensuring that a student’s personally
identifiable information is not
disclosed.
The Department’s November 18, 2004,
letter to the Tennessee Department of
Education (TNDOE) explains that an
educational agency or institution may
release for educational research
purposes (without parental consent)
anonymous data files, i.e., records from
which all personally identifiable
information has been removed but that
have coded each student’s record with
a non-personal identifier as described in
the letter. (Records or data that have
been stripped of identifiers and coded
may be re-identified and, therefore, are
properly characterized as de-identified.)
Under the guidance in the TNDOE
letter, a party must ensure that the
identity of any student cannot be
determined in coded records, including
assurances of sufficient cell and
subgroup size, and the linking key that
connects the code to student
information must not be shared with the
requesting entity.
The Department recognizes that
avoiding the risk of disclosure of
identity or individual attributes in
statistical information cannot be
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15583
completely eliminated, at least not
without negating the utility of the
information, and is always a matter of
analyzing and balancing risk so that the
risk of disclosure is very low. The
reasonable certainty standard in the
proposed definition of personally
identifiable information requires such a
balancing test. (Similarly, we are
proposing here to use the term ‘‘deidentified’’ instead of ‘‘anonymous’’—
which appears in previous guidance—
because it is more consistent with
terminology used by experts in the field
and reflects more accurately the level of
disclosure risk that should be achieved.)
Many educational institutions have
asked for guidance about how they may
disclose ‘‘redacted’’ education records
that concern students or incidents that
are well-known in the school or its
community. For example, a school has
suspended a student from school and
given the student a failing grade for
cheating on a test. The parent believes
the discipline is too harsh and
inconsistent with discipline given to
other students and asks to see the
redacted records of other students who
have been disciplined for cheating on
tests that year. Only one student has
been disciplined for this infraction
during the year, and the name of that
student is widely known because her
parents went to the media about the
accusation. The school may not release
the record in redacted form because the
publicity has made the record
personally identifiable.
Additionally, personally identifiable
information includes information that is
requested by a person who an agency or
institution reasonably believes has
direct, personal knowledge of the
identity of the student to whom the
education record directly relates. This is
known as a targeted request. In the
simplest case, if an individual asks for
the disciplinary report for a named
student, the institution may not release
a redacted copy of the report because
the requester knows the identity of the
student who is the subject of the report.
An individual can also make a targeted
request without mentioning the
student’s name. For example, a person
running for local office is known to have
graduated from a particular university
in 1978. Rumors circulate that the
candidate plagiarized other students’
work while in school. A local reporter
asks the university for redacted
disciplinary records for all students who
graduated in 1978 who were disciplined
for plagiarism. The university may not
release the records in redacted form
because the circumstances indicate that
the requester has made a targeted
request, i.e. has direct, personal
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
15584
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
knowledge of the subject of the case. In
another case, a local reporter reviewed
law enforcement unit records in October
2007 and learned that a prominent high
school athlete was under investigation
for use of illegal drugs. The newspaper
published front-page articles about the
matter that same month. Thereafter, the
reporter asked the student’s school for a
redacted copy of all disciplinary records
related to illegal drug use by student
athletes since October 2007. The school
may not release the records in redacted
form because the reporter has made a
targeted request.
Clearly, extenuating circumstances
sometimes cause identity to be revealed
even after all identifiers have been
removed, whether in aggregated or
student-level data. In these situations,
the key consideration in determining
whether the information is personally
identifiable is whether a reasonable
person in the school or its community,
without personal knowledge of the
relevant circumstances, would be able
to identify a student with reasonable
certainty. The Department is interested
in receiving comments on the scope of
the ‘‘school or its community’’
limitation in the reasonable person
standard, and how it would apply to the
release of redacted records as well as
statistical information, including
information released by State
educational authorities and entities
other than local districts and
institutions.
In regard to numerical or statistical
information, several educational
agencies and institutions have
expressed concern about the public
release of information that contains
small data sets that may be personally
identifiable. We have advised States and
schools generally that they may not
report publicly on the number of
students of a specified race, gender,
disability, English language proficiency,
migrant status, or other condition who
failed to graduate, received financial
aid, achieved certain test scores, etc.,
unless there is a sufficient number of
students in the defined category so that
personally identifiable information is
not released. Some schools have
indicated, for example, that they would
not disclose that two Hispanic, female
students failed to graduate, even if there
are several Hispanic females at the
institution, because of the likelihood
that the students who failed to graduate
could easily be identified in such a
small data set.
A review of data confidentiality
issues, especially as concerns the
Federal statistical agencies, indicates
that it is not possible to prescribe a
single method to apply in every
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
circumstance to minimize risk of
disclosing personally identifiable
information. This is true for several
reasons, including the wide variety of
data compilations and systems
maintained by different agencies and
institutions and the different types of
search requests they receive and data
sets they wish to disclose. More
generally, and as indicated in the
Federal Committee on Statistical
Methodology’s Statistical Policy
Working Paper 22 (available at https://
www.fcsm.gov/working-papers/
wp22.html), educational agencies and
institutions may wish to consider
current statistical, scientific and
technological concepts, and standards
when making decisions about analyzing
and minimizing the risk of disclosure in
statistical information. Consistent with
that view, the Department has
consistently declined to take a
categorical approach and advised
instead that the parties themselves are
in the best position to analyze and
identify the best methods to use to
protect the confidentiality of their own
data. See, for example, the September
25, 2003, letter to Board of Regents of
the University System of Georgia at
https://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/
fpco/ferpa/library/georgialtr.html;
October 19, 2004, letter to Miami
University at https://www.ed.gov/policy/
gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/library/
unofmiami.html.
However, the Department recognizes
that there are some practices from the
existing professional literature on
disclosure limitation that can assist
covered entities in developing a sound
approach to de-identifying data for
release, particularly when consultation
with professional statisticians with
experience in disclosure limitation
methods is not feasible. Each of the
items discussed in the following
subsection is elaborated on in Statistical
Working Paper 22 for further reference.
There are several steps that can assist
with de-identifying any data release.
The choice of methods depends on the
nature of the data release that must be
de-identified. First, covered entities
should recognize that the reidentification risk of any given release is
cumulative, i.e., directly related to what
has previously been released. Previous
releases include both publicly-available
directory information and de-identified
data releases. For example, if a publicly
available directory provides date and
place of birth, then a de-identified data
release that also contains the same
information for a group of students
could pose a re-identification risk if one
of those students has an unusual date
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and place of birth relevant to others in
the data release.
Second, covered entities should
minimize information released in
directories to the extent possible. The
Department is not attempting to limit
the statutory authority available to
covered entities in releasing directory
information, but recognizes that since
the statute’s enactment, the risk of reidentification from such information has
grown as a result of new technologies
and methods.
Third, covered entities should apply a
consistent de-identification strategy for
all of its data releases of a similar type.
The two major types of data release are
aggregated data (such as tables showing
numbers of enrolled students by race,
age and sex) and microdata (such as
individual level student assessment
results by grade and school). There are
several acceptable de-identification
strategies for each type of data. Major
methods used by the Department for
tabular data include defining a
minimum cell size (meaning no results
will be released for any cell of a table
with a number smaller than ‘‘X’’ or else
cells are aggregated until no cells based
on one or two cases remain) or
controlled rounding (meaning that cells
with a number smaller than ‘‘X’’ require
that numbers in the affected rows and
columns be rounded so that the totals
remain unchanged. For microdata
releases, the primary consideration is
whether the proposed release contains
any ‘‘unique’’ individuals whose
identity can be deduced by the
combination of variables in the file. If
such a condition exists, there are a
number of methods that can be
employed. These include ‘‘top coding’’
a variable (e.g., test scores above a
certain level are recoded to a defined
maximum), converting continuous data
elements into categorical data elements
(e.g., creating categories that subsume
unique cases) or data swapping to
introduce uncertainty so that the data
user does not know whether the real
data values correspond to certain
records.
The Department seeks public
comment on whether it needs to
develop further guidance on this topic
to assist educational agencies and
institutions.
Although FERPA does not contain a
general ‘‘research’’ exception to the
consent requirement, the Department
recognizes that useful and valid
educational research may be conducted
using de-identified data where
disclosure of personally identifiable
information from education records
would not be permissible under the
limited standards of § 99.31(a)(6) or
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
§ 99.31(a)(3), discussed above. This
regulation should not be interpreted to
discourage de-identified data releases,
but rather to clarify how to do so in a
manner that minimizes the risk of reidentification. Accordingly, the
proposed regulations are also needed to
provide a method that may be used by
a school, school district, state
department of education, postsecondary
institution or commission, or another
party that maintains education records
to release student-level or microdata for
purposes of education research. We
believe that these standards establish an
appropriate balance that facilitates
educational research and accountability
while preserving the privacy protections
in FERPA.
In order to permit ongoing
educational research with the same
data, the party that releases the
information may attach a unique
descriptor to each de-identified record
that will allow the recipient to match
other de-identified information received
from the same source. However, the
recipient may not be allowed to have
access to any information about how the
descriptor is generated and assigned, or
that would allow it to match the
information from education records
with data from any other source, unless
that data is de-identified and coded by
the party that discloses education
records. Furthermore, a record
descriptor assigned for educational
research purposes under this rule may
not be based on a student’s social
security number.
De-identified, student-level data
released for educational research
purposes must still conform to the
requirements discussed above regarding
small data sets that may lead to personal
identification of students. However,
unlike information released in
personally identifiable form under
§§ 99.31(a)(3) and 99.31(a)(6), deidentified information from education
records is not subject to any destruction
requirements because, by definition, it
is not ‘‘personally identifiable
information’’ under FERPA.
The Department cannot specify in
general which statistical disclosure
limitation (SDL) methods should be
used in any particular case. However,
educational agencies and institutions
should monitor releases of coded, deidentified microdata and take
reasonable measures to ensure that
overlapping or successive releases do
not result in data sets in which a
student’s personally identifiable
information is disclosed.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
5. Identification and Authentication of
Identity (§ 99.31(c))
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1) and
(b)(2) provides that an educational
agency or institution may not have a
policy or practice of releasing,
permitting the release of, or providing
access to any personally identifiable
information from education records
without written consent, except in
accordance with specified statutory
exceptions.
Current Regulations: Current
regulations do not address whether an
educational agency or institution must
ensure that it has properly identified a
party to whom it discloses personally
identifiable information from education
records.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations in § 99.31(c) would require
an educational agency or institution to
use reasonable methods to identify and
authenticate the identity of parents,
students, school officials, and any other
parties to whom the agency or
institution discloses personally
identifiable information from education
records.
Reasons: The proposed regulations
are needed to ensure that educational
agencies and institutions disclose
personally identifiable information from
education records only to authorized
recipients. Identification in this context
means determining who is the intended
or authorized recipient of the
information in question; authentication
of identity means ensuring that the
recipient is, in fact, who he or she
purports to be.
Identification of a party requesting
disclosure of hard copy education
records is relatively simple—the
responsible school official can confirm
the name and correct address for records
sent by mail and obtain photo
identification for personal delivery of
records to students, parents, school
officials, and other authorized recipients
who are not recognized personally by
the custodian of the records.
Identification presents unique
challenges in an electronic or telephonic
environment, where personal
recognition and photo identification
cards are irrelevant.
Occasionally educational agencies
and institutions disclose education
records to the wrong party because
someone misaddresses an envelope, or
puts the wrong material in a properly
addressed envelope. This is a failure to
properly identify the authorized
recipient. More commonly, parents and
students complain that unauthorized
parties obtain access to the student’s
education records because agencies and
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15585
institutions use widely available
information, such as name and date of
birth, or name and SSN or other student
ID number, when providing access to
electronic records or disclosing
information about a student by
telephone. This is a failure to properly
authenticate identity. These proposed
regulations would address both of these
problems.
Authentication of identity is a
complex subject that continues to
advance as new methods and
technologies are developed to meet
evolving standards for safeguarding
financial, health, and other types of
electronic records. The proposed
regulations allow an educational agency
or institution to use any reasonable
method. As discussed above in
connection with controlling access to
education records by school officials,
methods are considered reasonable if
they reduce the risk of unauthorized
disclosure to a level that is
commensurate with the likely threat and
potential harm and depend on variety of
factors, including the organization’s size
and resources. The greater the harm that
would result from unauthorized access
or disclosure, and consequently the
greater the likelihood that unauthorized
access or disclosure will be attempted,
the more protections an agency or
institution must use to ensure that its
methods are reasonable. Again,
reasonableness depends ultimately on
what are the usual and customary good
business practices of educational
agencies and institutions, which
requires ongoing review and
modification of procedures, where
appropriate, as standards and
technologies change.
Authentication of identity generally
involves requiring a user to provide
something that only the user knows,
such as a PIN, password, or answer to
a personal question; something that only
the user has, such as a smart card or
token; or a biometric factor associated
with no one other than the user, such as
a finger, iris, or voice print. Under the
proposed regulations an educational
agency or institution may determine
that single-factor authentication, such as
a standard form user name combined
with a secret PIN or password, is
reasonable for protecting access to
electronic grades and transcripts.
Single-factor authentication may not be
reasonable, however, for protecting
access to SSNs, credit card numbers,
and similar information that could be
used for identity theft and financial
fraud.
Likewise, an educational agency or
institution must ensure that it does not
deliver a password, PIN, smart card, or
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
15586
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
other factor used to authenticate
identity in a manner that would allow
access to unauthorized recipients. For
example, an agency or institution may
not make education records available
electronically by using a common form
user name (e.g., last name and first
name initial) with date of birth or SSN,
or a portion of the SSN, as an initial
password to be changed upon first use
of the system.
6. Redisclosure of Education Records by
Officials Listed in § 99.31(a)(3) (§ 99.32,
§ 99.35)
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(C),
(b)(3), and (b)(5) permits an educational
agency or institution to disclose
education records, without prior written
consent, to authorized representatives of
the United States Comptroller General,
the Secretary of Education, State and
local educational authorities, and the
U.S. Attorney General as necessary in
connection with the audit or evaluation
of Federal and State supported
education programs, or in connection
with the enforcement of Federal legal
requirements that relate to those
programs. Except when the collection of
personally identifiable information is
specifically authorized by Federal law,
personally identifiable information of
parents and students may not be
redisclosed to any other parties and
must be destroyed when no longer
needed for such audit, evaluation or
enforcement purposes.
In contrast, section 1232g(b)(4)(B)
contains a general prohibition on the
redisclosure of information from
education records. In particular, by
statute an educational agency or
institution may disclose personal
information from education records
only on the condition that the recipient
will not redisclose the information to
any other party without meeting the
prior written consent requirement. If a
recipient rediscloses personally
identifiable information from education
records in violation of the prior written
consent requirement, the agency or
institution that disclosed the records
may not permit that recipient to have
access to information from education
records for at least five years. There is
no general destruction requirement
similar to the specific requirement for
destruction of personally identifiable
information described above for records
disclosed for audit, evaluation, and
enforcement purposes under section
1232g(b)(3).
Current Regulations: Section
99.31(a)(3) lists the four officials or
authorities that may receive education
records, without consent, for the
specified audit, evaluation, or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
compliance and enforcement purposes.
The Department has interpreted the
term ‘‘evaluation’’ broadly to include all
manner of studies, assessments,
measurements, appraisals, research, and
other efforts, including analyses of
statistical or numerical data derived
from education records. Section 99.35
provides that information disclosed
under this exception to the consent
requirement must be protected in a
manner that does not permit personal
identification of individuals by anyone
except the officials listed in § 99.31(a)(3)
and must be destroyed when no longer
needed for the audit, evaluation, or
compliance and enforcement purposes,
unless a parent or eligible student
consents to the disclosure or Federal
law specifically authorizes the
collection of personally identifiable
information. Current regulations do not
specify any further conditions under
which these officials or authorities may
redisclose personally identifiable
information from education records
without prior written consent.
Section 99.33(c) establishes specific
exceptions to the general statutory
prohibition on redisclosure of
information from education records
under 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(4)(B). Section
99.33(b) also allows an educational
agency or institution to disclose
education records with the
understanding that the recipient may
make further disclosures of the
information on its behalf if the
disclosures could be made under § 99.31
and the educational agency or
institution complies with the
recordkeeping requirements specified in
§ 99.32(b). Section 99.32(a) requires an
educational agency or institution to
maintain a record of each request for
access to and each disclosure of
personally identifiable information from
the education records of each student. If
a recipient is authorized to make further
disclosures of personally identifiable
information from education records
under § 99.33(b), the educational agency
or institution must record the names of
the additional parties to which the
receiving party may disclose the
information on behalf of the educational
agency or institution and their
legitimate interests under § 99.31 in
requesting or obtaining the information.
Each student’s record of disclosures is
an education record that must be made
available to a parent or eligible student
under § 99.32(c). The Department has
not applied the regulatory exception in
§ 99.33(b) to officials or authorities that
receive information under §§ 99.31(a)(3)
and 99.35 because of the more specific
statutory limitations, including the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
destruction requirement, that generally
apply to these disclosures.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations in § 99.35(b)(1) would
permit officials and authorities listed in
§ 99.31(a)(3)(i) to redisclose personally
identifiable information from education
records under the same conditions, set
forth in § 99.33(b), that apply to parties
that receive personally identifiable
information from education records
under other exceptions in § 99.31. For
example, this proposed change would
allow a State educational agency (SEA)
to use the exception in § 99.31(a)(2) to
transfer a student’s education records to
a student’s new school district on behalf
of the former district. Similarly, an SEA
or other official listed in § 99.31(a)(3)
would be able to redisclose personally
identifiable information from education
records received under § 99.35 to an
accrediting agency under § 99.31(a)(7);
in response to a subpoena or court order
under § 99.31(a)(9); or in connection
with a health or safety emergency under
§§ 99.31(a)(10) and 99.36. The proposed
regulations would also apply to the
redisclosure of education records by an
SEA (or other official listed in
§ 99.31(a)(3)) to another listed official,
such as the Secretary, for audit,
evaluation, or compliance and
enforcement purposes under § 99.35.
The regulations would also clarify that
authority to conduct an audit,
evaluation, or compliance or
enforcement activity is not conferred by
FERPA and must be established under
other Federal, State, or local law,
including valid administrative
regulations. Like redisclosures
permitted currently under § 99.33(b),
redisclosures made by officials listed in
§ 99.31(a)(3)(i) under the proposed
amendment would be subject to the
recordation requirements in § 99.32(b).
Reasons: School districts and
postsecondary institutions typically
disclose education records, or
personally identifiable information from
education records, to their SEA or State
higher education authority, without
prior written consent, for audit,
evaluation, or compliance and
enforcement purposes subject to the
requirements of § 99.35. Several SEAs
that maintain Statewide, consolidated
systems for school district records
subject to § 99.35 have questioned
whether they may allow a student’s new
school district to obtain access to
personally identifiable information from
education records submitted to the
system by the student’s former district.
(Historically, when a student transfers
to a new school, the former school
district sends the student’s education
records to the student’s new district,
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
without consent, under § 99.31(a)(2).)
Others have asked whether records
subject to § 99.35 may be redisclosed in
compliance with a subpoena or court
order and, if so, what conditions apply.
States have also asked about the
operation of longitudinal data systems
that consolidate K–12 and
postsecondary education records.
As noted elsewhere in this notice,
there are no specific statutory
exceptions to either the prohibition on
redisclosure of education records
disclosed under § 99.31 or the more
specific limitations for records disclosed
under § 99.35. Accordingly, final
regulations published on June 17, 1976
(41 FR 24662) provided in § 99.33(a)
that educational agencies and
institutions must inform a third party to
whom personally identifiable
information from education records is
disclosed that it may not redisclose any
personally identifiable information
without the written consent of a parent
or eligible student. However, these
regulations also added a provision in
§ 99.33(b) that permits the agency or
institution to disclose
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
personally identifiable information under
§ 99.31 with the understanding that the
information will be redisclosed to other
parties under that section; Provided, That the
recordkeeping requirements of § 99.32 are
met with respect to each of those parties.
41 FR 24662, 24679.
The Secretary recognizes that officials
and authorities that receive education
records for audit, evaluation,
compliance, or enforcement purposes
under §§ 99.31(a)(3) and 99.35 are no
less capable of protecting the
information against unauthorized access
and disclosure than parties that receive
education records under other
exceptions in § 99.31. The proposed
amendment is needed so that SEAs and
other officials and authorities listed in
§ 99.31(a)(3)(i) may take advantage of
the regulatory exception in § 99.33(b)
and redisclose personally identifiable
information from education records
directly to a qualified recipient under an
exception in § 99.31 instead of requiring
that party to go to each school district
or institution that submitted the records
for audit, evaluation, compliance, or
enforcement purposes. Similarly, the
proposed regulations are needed to
clarify that an official or authority that
maintains personally identifiable
information from education records
subject to § 99.35 may redisclose that
information to another authority listed
in § 99.31(a)(3)(i) for another qualifying
audit, evaluation, compliance, or
enforcement activity, notwithstanding
the limitations in § 99.35.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
The proposed regulations clarify that
while FERPA permits the disclosure and
redisclosure of education records
without consent to officials and
authorities listed in § 99.31(a)(3)(i) for
the purposes specified, it does not
confer or establish the underlying
authority for those officials and
authorities to conduct an audit,
evaluation, or compliance or
enforcement activity. If Federal, State,
or local law authorizes a particular
entity to audit or evaluate the education
records, then FERPA permits the
disclosure of personally identifiable
information for that purpose without
consent. For example, this exception
allows a school district to disclose
education records to its own State
department of education or other SEA
because that agency is legally
authorized to audit or evaluate the
school district’s education programs, or
enforce Federal legal requirements
related to those programs. This
exception does not allow a school
district to disclose education records to
the State higher education authority
without parental consent unless that
agency is empowered under Federal,
State or local law to conduct an audit,
evaluation, or compliance or
enforcement activity with respect to that
school district’s education programs.
The legal authority to audit, evaluate, or
enforce education programs does not
derive from FERPA itself.
These proposed regulations would
also ensure that State and local
educational authorities may redisclose
personally identifiable information from
education records in order to
consolidate K–16 education records for
audit, evaluation, compliance, or
enforcement purposes under § 99.35(a).
For example, under the proposed
regulations, a State’s postsecondary or
higher education authority may
redisclose personally identifiable
information from the education records
it maintains to a consolidated data
system operated by the SEA if the SEA
is legally authorized to conduct an
audit, evaluation, compliance, or
enforcement activity of postsecondary
education programs. Likewise, an SEA
may redisclose personally identifiable
information from K–12 education
records to a consolidated database
operated by a State’s higher education
authority if the higher education
authority is legally authorized to
conduct the audit, evaluation,
compliance, or enforcement activity of
K–12 educational programs.
As noted above, disclosures under
§ 99.33(b) are based on an
understanding on the part of the
educational agency or institution that
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15587
the recipient will redisclose information
to specified recipients on its behalf
subject to the recordation requirements
in § 99.32(b). The Department is
interested in relieving any
administrative burdens associated with
recording disclosures of education
records and, therefore, invites public
comment on whether an SEA, the
Department, or other official or agency
listed in § 99.31(a)(3) should be allowed
to maintain the record of the
redisclosures it makes on behalf of an
educational agency or institution under
§ 99.32(b).
7. Limitations on the Redisclosure of
Information From Education Records
(§ 99.33)
Section 99.31(a)(9) (Subpoenas and
Court Orders)
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(4)(B)
provides that an educational agency or
institution may disclose personally
identifiable information from education
records to a third party only on the
condition that the recipient will not
redisclose the information to anyone
else without written consent of the
parent or eligible student. If a third
party outside the educational agency or
institution permits access to information
without written consent of a parent or
eligible student as required under 20
U.S.C. 1232g(b)(2)(A), the educational
agency or institution may not permit
access to information from education
records by that third party for a period
of not less than five years. There is no
specific statutory exception to the
prohibition on redisclosure of
personally identifiable information from
education records.
20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(2)(B) provides that
an educational agency or institution
may disclose personally identifiable
information without consent if the
information is furnished in compliance
with a judicial order or any lawfully
issued subpoena, upon the condition
that parents and students are notified in
advance of compliance. Advance notice
is not required for certain Federal grand
jury subpoenas and subpoenas issued
for law enforcement purposes. 20 U.S.C.
1232g(b)(1)(J).
Current Regulations: Section
99.33(a)(1) permits an educational
agency or institution to disclose
personally identifiable information from
education records only on the condition
that the recipient will not redisclose the
information to any other party without
the prior consent of the parent or
eligible student. Section 99.33(b)
provides for an exception to this general
rule. Specifically, under § 99.33(b), an
educational agency or institution may
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
15588
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
disclose personally identifiable
information from education records
with the understanding that the party
receiving the information may make
further disclosures on behalf of the
educational agency or institution if the
disclosures meet the requirements of
§ 99.31(a) and the educational agency or
institution complies with the
recordkeeping requirements in
§ 99.32(b). Under § 99.33(e), if the Office
determines that a third party improperly
rediscloses personally identifiable
information from education records in
violation of the prohibition on
redisclosure in § 99.33(a), subject to the
provisions of § 99.33(b), the educational
agency or institution may not allow that
third party access to personally
identifiable information from education
records for at least five years.
Section 99.31(a)(9) permits an
educational agency or institution to
disclose personally identifiable
information from education records
without consent in compliance with a
judicial order or lawfully issued
subpoena, provided that the agency or
institution makes a reasonable effort to
notify the parent or eligible student of
the order or subpoena in advance of
compliance so that the parent or eligible
student may seek protective action.
Notification is not required for certain
grand jury and law enforcement
subpoenas.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations in § 99.33(b)(2) would
require a party that has received
personally identifiable information from
education records from an educational
agency or institution, including an SEA
or other official listed in § 99.31(a)(3)(i),
to provide the notice to parents and
eligible students, if any, required under
§ 99.31(a)(9) before it rediscloses
personally identifiable information from
the records on behalf of an educational
agency or institution in compliance
with a judicial order or lawfully issued
subpoena, as authorized under
§ 99.33(b).
Reasons: Section 99.33(b) allows a
party to redisclose personally
identifiable information under § 99.31(a)
on behalf of an educational agency or
institution, including redisclosure in
compliance with a judicial order or
lawfully issued subpoena under
§ 99.31(a)(9). (As noted above, the
proposed amendments to § 99.35 would
extend this authority to SEAs and other
officials and agencies listed in
§ 99.31(a)(3)(i).) The proposed
regulations are needed to clarify which
party is responsible for notifying parents
and eligible students before an SEA or
other third party outside of the
educational agency or institution
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
complies with a judicial order or
subpoena to redisclose personally
identifiable information from education
records. The Secretary believes that the
party that has been ordered to produce
the information should be responsible
for ensuring that the parent or eligible
student has been notified because the
educational agency or institution has no
control over whether and when that
party will comply. The penalty in
§ 99.33(e) would prohibit an educational
agency or institution from providing
access to any third party that fails to
provide reasonable notice to parents and
eligible students before complying with
a judicial or lawfully issued subpoena.
Disclosures Required Under the Clery
Act
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(4)(B)
provides that an educational agency or
institution may disclose personally
identifiable information from education
records to a third party only on the
condition that the recipient will not
redisclose the information to anyone
else without written consent of the
parent or eligible student. 20 U.S.C.
1232g(b)(6)(B) allows a postsecondary
institution to disclose to any party,
without consent, the final results of a
disciplinary proceeding against a
student for crimes of violence or nonforcible sex offenses if the institution
determines as a result of the
disciplinary proceeding that the student
committed the violation in question. 20
U.S.C. 1232g(b)(6)(A) allows a
postsecondary institution to disclose to
the alleged victim the final results of
disciplinary proceedings against a
student for crimes of violence or nonforcible sex offenses regardless of the
outcome. The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of
Campus Security Policy and Campus
Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act), which
amended the HEA, requires
postsecondary institutions to inform
both the accuser and the accused of the
outcome of a campus disciplinary
proceeding brought alleging a sexual
assault regardless of the outcome. 20
U.S.C. 1092(f)(8)(B)(iv)(II); 34 CFR
668.46(b)(11)(vi)(B).
Current Regulations: Regulations
implementing the Clery Act, 34 CFR
§ 668.46(b)(11)(iv)(B), require
postsecondary institutions to inform
both the accuser and the accused of the
outcome of any institutional
disciplinary proceeding brought alleging
a sex offense. Under this provision the
outcome of a disciplinary proceeding
means only the institution’s final
determination with respect to the
alleged sex offense and any sanction
that is imposed against the accused.
Section 99.33(a) permits an educational
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
agency or institution to disclose
personally identifiable information from
education records only on the condition
that the recipient will not redisclose the
information to any other party without
the prior consent of the parent or
eligible student. Section 99.33(c)
excludes from the statutory prohibition
on redisclosure information that an
educational agency or institution may
disclose without consent to any member
of the public, such as directory
information under § 99.31(a)(11) and the
final results of a disciplinary proceeding
for acts constituting crimes of violence
or non-forcible sex offenses under
§ 99.31(a)(14) when a postsecondary
institution has determined that the
student committed the violation in
question. Current regulations in
§ 99.33(c) do not exclude from the
redisclosure prohibition disclosures
made by postsecondary institutions to
an alleged victim of a crime of violence
or non-forcible sex offense under
§ 99.31(a)(13) or disclosures they are
required to make under the Clery Act.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations would amend § 99.33(c) to
exclude from the statutory prohibition
on redisclosure of education records
information that postsecondary
institutions are required to disclose
under the Clery Act to the accuser and
accused regarding the outcome of any
campus disciplinary proceeding brought
alleging a sexual offense.
Reasons: Some postsecondary
institutions have required the accuser to
execute a non-disclosure agreement
before they disclose the outcome of a
disciplinary proceeding for an alleged
sexual offense as required under the
Clery Act. In analyzing and ruling on
these practices, the Department
determined that the statutory
prohibition on redisclosure of
information from education records in
FERPA does not apply to information
that a postsecondary institution is
required to release to students under the
Clery Act. The proposed regulations
would clarify that postsecondary
institutions may not require the accuser
to execute a non-disclosure agreement
or otherwise interfere with the
redisclosure or other use of information
disclosed as required under the Clery
Act.
8. Health and Safety Emergencies
(§ 99.36)
Section 99.36(c) (Conditions That Apply
to Disclosure of Information in Health
and Safety Emergencies)
Statute: Under 20 U.S.C.
1232g(b)(1)(I), an educational agency or
institution may disclose personally
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
identifiable information from education
records without prior written consent,
subject to regulations by the Secretary,
in connection with an emergency to
appropriate persons if the knowledge of
such information is necessary to protect
the health or safety of the student or
other persons.
Current regulations: Under § 99.36(a),
an educational agency or institution
may disclose personally identifiable
information from education records to
appropriate parties in connection with
an emergency if knowledge of the
information is necessary to protect the
health or safety of the student or other
individuals. Under § 99.36(b),
educational agencies and institutions
may include in a student’s education
records appropriate information
concerning disciplinary action taken
against the student for conduct that
posed a significant risk to the safety or
well-being of that student, other
students, or other members of the school
community. Educational agencies and
institutions may also disclose
appropriate information about these
kinds of disciplinary actions to teachers
and school officials within the agency or
institution or in other schools who have
legitimate educational interests in the
behavior of the student. Under
§ 99.36(c), all of these regulatory
provisions must be strictly construed.
Proposed regulations: The
Department proposes to revise § 99.36(c)
to remove the language requiring strict
construction of this exception and add
a provision that in making a
determination under § 99.36(a), an
educational agency or institution may
take into account the totality of the
circumstances pertaining to a threat to
the safety or health of a student or other
individuals. If the educational agency or
institution determines that there is an
articulable and significant threat to the
health or safety of a student or other
individuals, it may disclose information
from education records to any person
whose knowledge of the information is
necessary to protect the health and
safety of the student or other
individuals. If, based on the information
available at the time of the
determination, there is a rational basis
for the determination, the Department
will not substitute its judgment for that
of the educational agency or institution
in evaluating the circumstances and
making its determination.
Reasons: In the wake of the tragic
shootings at Virginia Tech, the President
directed the Secretary, together with the
Secretary of Health and Human Services
and the Attorney General, to travel to
communities across the nation and to
meet with educators, mental health
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
experts, law enforcement and State and
local officials to discuss the broader
issues raised by the tragedy. On June 13,
2007, those officials transmitted a
‘‘Report to the President on Issues
Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy.’’
See https://www.hhs.gov/vtreport.html.
In relevant part, the report provided:
A consistent theme and broad perception
in our meetings was that this confusion and
differing interpretations about state and
federal privacy laws and regulations impede
appropriate information sharing. In some
sessions, there were concerns and confusion
about the potential liability of teachers,
administrators, or institutions that could
arise from sharing information, or from not
sharing information, under privacy laws, as
well as laws designed to protect individuals
from discrimination on the basis of mental
illness. It was almost universally observed
that these fears and misunderstandings likely
limit the transfer of information in more
significant ways than is required by law.
Particularly, although participants in each
state meeting were aware of both [the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
of 1996 (HIPAA)] and FERPA, there was
significant misunderstanding about the scope
and application of these laws and their
interrelation with state laws. In a number of
discussions, participants reported
circumstances in which they incorrectly
believed that they were subject to liability or
foreclosed from sharing information under
federal law. Other participants were unsure
whether and how HIPAA and FERPA
actually limit or allow information to be
shared and unaware of exceptions that could
allow relevant information to be shared.
Report at page 7. The report went on to
charge the Department with certain
specific recommended actions:
The U.S. Departments of Health and
Human Services and Education should
develop additional guidance that clarifies
how information can be shared legally under
HIPAA and FERPA and disseminate it widely
to the mental health, education, and law
enforcement communities. The U.S.
Department of Education should ensure that
parents and school officials understand how
and when post-secondary institutions can
share information on college students with
parents. In addition, the U.S. Departments of
Education and Health and Human Services
should consider whether further actions are
needed to balance more appropriately the
interests of safety, privacy, and treatment
implicated by FERPA and HIPAA.
Report at page 8 (italics in original). The
Department of Education and the
Department of Health and Human
Services are currently working together
on guidance for our respective
communities on these issues. This
guidance is in addition to compliance
training and guidance that the two
agencies have provided since issuance
of the HIPAA Privacy Rule in December
2000 and, more recently, since the
events in April 2007 at Virginia Tech.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15589
Further, the Secretary has carefully
considered the appropriate relationship
between conditions associated with
Federal funding and the exigencies of
administering an agency or institution
of education on a daily basis. In
examining the application of FERPA to
the recipients of Departmental funds,
the Secretary is mindful that the ‘‘health
and safety’’ exception does not allow
disclosures on a routine, non-emergency
basis. For example, the ‘‘health and
safety’’ exception does not permit a
school district to routinely share its
student information database with the
local police department. The present
regulation, however, which merely
admonishes that the regulation should
be ‘‘strictly construed,’’ does not
provide a standard to determine
whether a particular disclosure
complies with the statute.
Consequently, the Secretary has decided
to provide a new standard for the
administration of this exception to the
written consent requirement in FERPA.
To assure that there are adequate
safeguards on this exception, the
Secretary requires that, considering the
totality of the circumstances, there must
be an articulable and significant threat
to the health or safety of a student or
other individuals, and that the
disclosure be to any person whose
knowledge of the information is
necessary to protect against the threat.
On the other hand, the Secretary has
determined that greater flexibility and
deference should be afforded to
administrators so they can bring
appropriate resources to bear on a
circumstance that threatens the health
or safety of individuals. To provide for
appropriate flexibility and deference,
the Secretary has determined that if,
based on the information available at
the time of the determination, there is
a rational basis for the determination,
the Department will not substitute its
judgment for that of the educational
agency or institution in evaluating the
circumstances and making its
determination.
In short, in balancing the interests of
safety, privacy, and treatment, the
Secretary proposes to revise the
regulation to specify legal standards, but
to couple those standards with greater
flexibility and deference to
administrators so they can bring
appropriate resources to bear on a
circumstance that threatens the health
or safety of individuals.
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
15590
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
9. Directory Information (§ 99.37)
Section 99.37(b) (Disclosure of Directory
Information About Former Students)
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Statute: Under 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(5),
(b)(1), and (b)(2), an educational agency
or institution may disclose directory
information without meeting FERPA’s
written consent requirements provided
that it first notifies the parents or
eligible student of the types of
information that may be disclosed and
allows them to opt out of the disclosure.
The statute lists a number of items in
the definition of directory information,
including a student’s name, address and
telephone listing. The statute does not
address procedures for disclosing
directory information about former
students.
Current Regulations: Section 99.37(a)
requires an educational agency or
institution to provide public notice to
parents of students in attendance and
eligible students in attendance of the
types of directory information that may
be disclosed and the parent’s or eligible
student’s right to opt out. Section
99.37(b) allows the agency or institution
to disclose directory information about
former students without providing the
notice required under § 99.37(a).
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 99.37(b) clarifies that an agency or
institution must continue to honor any
valid request to opt out of directory
information disclosures made while the
individual was a student unless the
parent or eligible student rescinds the
decision to opt out of directory
information disclosures.
Reasons: Some institutions have
indicated that § 99.37(b) creates
uncertainty about whether they must
continue to honor a parent’s or eligible
student’s decision to opt out of directory
information disclosures once the
student no longer attends the
institution. The regulations are needed
to clarify that while an agency or
institution does not have to notify
former students about its policy on
directory information disclosures and
their right to opt out, directory
information may not be disclosed once
an individual is no longer a student if
the individual made a valid request to
opt out while a student in attendance
and has not rescinded that request.
Section 99.37(c) (Identification of
Students and Communications in Class)
Statute: The statute does not address
whether parents and students may use
their right to opt out of directory
information disclosures to prevent
school officials from identifying the
student by name or disclosing the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
student’s electronic identifier or
institutional e-mail address in class.
Current Regulations: Current
regulations do not address whether
parents and students may use their right
to opt out of directory information
disclosures to prevent school officials
from identifying the student by name or
disclosing the student’s electronic
identifier or institutional e-mail address
in class.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations would provide in § 99.37(c)
that a parent or eligible student may not
use their right to opt out of directory
information disclosures to prevent an
educational agency or institution from
disclosing or requiring a student to
disclose the student’s name, electronic
identifier, or institutional e-mail address
in a class in which the student is
enrolled.
Reasons: Several institutions have
asked whether a teacher can include in
a classroom roll call or sign-in sheet the
names of students who have opted out
of directory information disclosures.
They have also asked whether a
student’s e-mail address may be
disclosed to other students in an on-line
class if the student has opted out of
directory information disclosures. The
proposed regulations are needed to
clarify that the right to opt out of
directory information disclosures is not
a tool for students to remain anonymous
in class.
The directory information exception
is intended to facilitate communication
among school officials, parents,
students, alumni, and others, and
permit schools to publicize and promote
institutional activities to the general
public. Many institutions do so by
publishing paper or electronic
directories that contain student names,
addresses, telephone listings, e-mail
addresses, and other information the
institution has designated as directory
information. Some institutions do not
publish a directory but do release
directory information on a more
selective basis. FERPA clearly allows a
parent or eligible student to opt out of
these disclosures (under the conditions
specified in paragraph (a)), whether the
information is made available to the
general public, limited to members of
the school community, or released only
to specified individuals.
The Secretary believes, however, that
the right to opt out of directory
information disclosures does not
include a right to remain anonymous in
class and, therefore, may not be used to
impede routine classroom
communications and interactions by
preventing a teacher from identifying a
student by name in class, whether class
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
is held in a specified physical location
or on-line through electronic
communications. This means, for
example, that regardless of a student’s
block on directory information
disclosures, a teacher may call students
by first and last name in class and
require students to place their names on
a sign-in sheet circulated in class,
whether the class is conducted in
person or on-line. Because students
generally do not have face-to-face
communications in on-line classes (or in
an on-line component of traditional
classes), schools may also disclose or
require students to disclose a unique
electronic identifier or e-mail address
used for students to communicate with
one another for on-line class work. This
could be either an e-mail address
assigned by the institution or one
selected by the student for this purpose.
Note that this provision is strictly
limited to information needed to
identify and enable students to
communicate in class, i.e., the student’s
name, unique electronic identifier, and
institutional e-mail address. It provides
no authority to disclose any directory
information outside of the student’s
class. Further, no other kinds of
directory information, including a
student’s home or campus address,
telephone listing, or personal e-mail
address not used for class
communications, may be disclosed,
even within the student’s own class, if
the parent or eligible student has
exercised the right to opt out of
directory information disclosures.
Section 99.37(d) (Prohibition on Use of
SSNs To Identify Students When
Disclosing or Confirming Directory
Information)
Statute: The statute does not address
the permissibility of using SSNs to
identify students when disclosing or
confirming directory information.
Current Regulations: Current
regulations do not explicitly prohibit
the use of SSNs to identify students
when disclosing or confirming directory
information.
Proposed Regulations: Section
99.37(d) would prohibit an educational
agency or institution from using an SSN,
either alone or when combined with
other data elements, to identify or help
identify a student or the student’s
records when disclosing or confirming
directory information unless the student
has provided written consent in
accordance with FERPA.
Reasons: Some institutions, along
with vendors that provide services on
behalf of institutions, allow employers
and others who seek directory
information about a student, such as
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
whether a student has ever attended the
institution or received a degree, to
submit the student’s SSN as a means of
identifying the individual. These
regulations are needed to provide a
legally binding interpretation that this
practice violates FERPA unless the
student has provided prior written
consent for the institution to disclose
the student’s SSN, even if the institution
or vendor only explicitly releases or
confirms directory information about
the student. Use of an SSN to identify
a student or the student’s records
constitutes an implicit confirmation of
the SSN, even if several other data
elements are also used to help identify
the student in the process.
10. Enforcement (§§ 99.62, 99.64, 99.65,
99.66, and 99.67)
These proposed amendments are
intended to clarify the Secretary’s
enforcement authority in light of the
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in
Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273
(2002). They do not reflect an intention
or plan on the part of the Secretary to
initiate FERPA institutional compliance
reviews or otherwise expand FERPA
investigations beyond the current
practice of the Office. The Department
will exercise its authority to investigate
a specific agency or institution only
when possible violations are brought to
The Department’s attention.
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(f) and (g)
directs the Secretary to take appropriate
actions to enforce FERPA. The statute
does not specify any requirements an
educational agency or institution must
meet in connection with the Office’s
investigation of complaints and
violations of FERPA.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Section 99.62 (Information Required for
the Office To Investigate and Resolve
Complaints and Violations)
Current Regulations: Under § 99.62
the Office may require an educational
agency or institution to submit reports
containing information needed by the
Office to resolve complaints.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations in § 99.62 would specify
materials that the Office may require an
educational agency or institution to
submit in order to carry out its
investigation and other enforcement
responsibilities, including information
on the agency’s or institution’s policies
and procedures, annual notifications,
training materials, and other relevant
information.
Reasons: The regulations are needed
to clarify the kinds of information that
may be required should the Office seek
to determine whether a violation
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
constitutes a policy or practice of the
agency or institution.
Section 99.64 (Complaint and
Investigation Procedure)
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(g) provides
that the Secretary must establish or
designate an office and review board to
investigate, process, review, and
adjudicate FERPA violations and
complaints alleging FERPA violations.
The statute does not specify the
requirements of a complaint or
procedures to be followed by the Office
in investigating and resolving alleged
FERPA violations.
Current Regulations: Section 99.64(a)
provides that a complaint must contain
specific allegations of fact that an
educational agency or institution has
violated FERPA. Under § 99.64(b), the
Office investigates each timely
complaint to determine whether a
violation occurred.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed
regulations provide in § 99.64(a) that a
complaint does not have to allege that
a violation or failure to comply with
FERPA is based on a policy or practice
of the agency or institution. Under
proposed § 99.64(b), if the Office
determines that the agency or institution
has violated or failed to comply with a
FERPA requirement, the Office may also
seek to determine whether the violation
or failure to comply was based on a
policy or practice of the agency or
institution. In addition, the Office may
investigate a possible FERPA violation
even if it has not received a timely
complaint from a parent or student or if
a valid complaint is subsequently
withdrawn.
Reasons: The proposed regulations
are needed to clarify that the
Department’s enforcement
responsibilities, as described in
Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273
(2002), include the authority to
investigate possible FERPA violations
even if no complaint has been filed or
a complaint has been withdrawn. While
not a widespread problem, the
Department needs to establish in its
regulations that the Office may
investigate allegations of noncompliance provided by a school
official or some other party who is not
a parent or eligible student because
sometimes parents and students are not
aware of an ongoing FERPA problem
that needs to be addressed.
The proposed amendments to § 99.64
are also needed to clarify that the Office
may investigate a FERPA complaint
even if the party has not specifically
alleged that the agency or institution has
a policy or practice in violation of
FERPA. In these circumstances, the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15591
Office may elect to investigate and
determine whether conduct that violates
a specific FERPA requirement also
constitutes a policy or practice of the
agency or institution. (As explained
below in connection with proposed
amendments to § 99.66, the Department
may not seek to withhold funding,
terminate eligibility to receive funding
under an applicable program, or take
other enforcement actions unless it
determines that an educational agency
or institution has a policy or practice in
violation of FERPA requirements and
has not come into compliance
voluntarily.)
Section 99.65 (Content of Notice of
Investigation)
Statute: The statute does not specify
what information the Office must
include in a notice of investigation of a
FERPA violation.
Current Regulations: Under § 99.65
the Office asks an educational agency or
institution to submit a written response
to a notice of investigation.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed
§ 99.65(a) would allow the Office to ask
an educational agency or institution to
submit a written response and other
relevant information as set forth in
§ 99.62.
Reasons: The regulations are needed
to clarify that the Office may ask an
agency or institution to submit any
relevant information needed to resolve a
complaint or otherwise conduct an
investigation under FERPA.
Section 99.66 (Enforcement
Responsibilities of the Office)
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(1)(A) and
(B) provides that no funds shall be made
available under any program
administered by the Secretary to an
educational agency or institution or an
SEA that has a policy of denying or
effectively prevents parents from
exercising their right to inspect and
review the student’s education records.
20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(2) provides that no
funds shall be made available under any
program administered by the Secretary
to an educational agency or institution
unless parents are provided an
opportunity for a hearing to challenge
the content of the student’s education
records under specified conditions. 20
U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1) and (b)(2) provide
that no funds shall be made available
under any program administered by the
Secretary to an educational agency or
institution that has a policy or practice
of permitting the release of, releasing, or
providing access to personally
identifiable information in education
records without prior written consent
except as authorized under FERPA. 20
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
15592
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
U.S.C. 1232g(f) directs the Secretary to
take appropriate actions to enforce and
deal with FERPA violations, except that
action to terminate assistance may be
taken only if the Secretary finds that
there has been a failure to comply and
that compliance cannot be secured by
voluntary means. The statute does not
specify what steps the Secretary should
take to conduct investigations and seek
voluntary compliance.
Current Regulations: Under § 99.66,
the Office reviews a complaint and
response from an educational agency or
institution and may permit the parties to
submit further written or oral arguments
or information. Following its
investigation, the Office provides to the
complainant and the agency or
institution written notice of its findings,
including the basis for its findings. If the
Office finds that the educational agency
or institution has failed to comply with
a FERPA requirement, its notice
includes a statement of the specific
steps that the agency or institution must
take to comply and provides a
reasonable period of time, given all the
circumstances, during which the agency
or institution may comply voluntarily.
Proposed Regulations: Section
99.66(c) would allow the Office to issue
a notice of findings that an educational
agency or institution violated FERPA
without also finding that the violation
constituted a policy or practice of the
agency or institution.
Reasons: In light of the Supreme
Court’s ruling in Gonzaga, the proposed
regulations are needed to clarify that,
consistent with its current practice, the
Office may find that an agency or
institution violated FERPA even if the
Office does not make a further
determination that the violation was
based on a policy or practice of the
agency or institution. As explained
below in connection with proposed
amendments to § 99.67(a), however, the
Secretary may not take an enforcement
action unless the Office has determined
that the educational agency or
institution has a policy or practice in
violation of FERPA.
Section 99.67 (Enforcement Actions)
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(1)(A) and
(B) provides that no funds shall be made
available under any program
administered by the Secretary to an
educational agency or institution or an
SEA that has a policy of denying or
effectively prevents parents from
exercising their right to inspect and
review the student’s education records.
20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(2) provides that no
funds shall be made available under any
program administered by the Secretary
to an educational agency or institution
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
unless parents are provided an
opportunity for a hearing to challenge
the content of the student’s education
records under specified conditions. 20
U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1) and (b)(2) provide
that no funds shall be made available
under any program administered by the
Secretary to an educational agency or
institution that has a policy or practice
of permitting the release of, releasing, or
providing access to education records
without prior written consent except as
authorized under FERPA. 20 U.S.C.
1232g(f) directs the Secretary to take
appropriate actions to enforce and deal
with FERPA violations, except that
action to terminate assistance may be
taken only if the Secretary finds that
there has been a failure to comply and
that compliance cannot be secured by
voluntary means. The statute does not
specify what steps the Secretary should
take to conduct investigations and seek
voluntary compliance or what
enforcement actions the Secretary may
take in cases of non-compliance.
Current Regulations: Under § 99.67(a),
the Secretary may withhold further
payments under any applicable
program, issue a complaint to compel
compliance through a cease and desist
order, or terminate eligibility to receive
funding under any applicable program
only if an educational agency or
institution fails to comply voluntarily
with a notice finding that the agency or
institution has not complied with the
Act.
Proposed Regulations: Under
proposed § 99.67(a), the Secretary may
take enforcement actions if the Office
determines that the educational agency
or institution has a policy or practice in
violation of FERPA requirements and
has failed to come into compliance
voluntarily. The proposed regulations
also clarify that the Secretary may take
any other appropriate enforcement
action in addition to those listed
specifically in the regulations.
Reasons: The proposed regulations
are needed to clarify that the Office may
issue a notice of violation or failure to
comply with specific FERPA
requirements, such as a single failure to
provide a parent with access to
education records, and require
corrective action. However, the Office
may not seek to withhold payments,
terminate eligibility for funding, or take
other enforcement actions unless the
Office determines that the agency or
institution has a policy or practice in
violation of FERPA requirements. The
proposed regulations are also needed to
clarify that the Secretary may take any
other enforcement action that is legally
available, such as entering into a
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
compliance agreement under 20 U.S.C.
1234f or seeking an injunction.
Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and
therefore subject to the requirements of
the Executive Order and subject to
review by the OMB. Section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 defines a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an
action likely to result in a rule that may
(1) have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local or tribal governments or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule); (2) create serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the
budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights
and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive order. The
Secretary has determined that this
regulatory action is significant under
section 3(f)(4) of the Executive order.
1. Potential Costs and Benefits
Following is an analysis of the
potential costs and benefits of the most
significant proposed changes to the
FERPA regulations. In conducting this
analysis, the Department examined the
extent to which the regulations add to
or reduce the costs of educational
agencies and institutions and, where
appropriate, State educational agencies
(SEAs) and other State and local
educational authorities in relation to
their costs of complying with the
FERPA regulations prior to these
changes.
This analysis is based on data from
the most recent Digest of Education
Statistics (2006) published by the
National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES), which projects total enrollment
of 48,948,000 students in public
elementary and secondary schools and
17,648,000 students in postsecondary
institutions; and a total of 96,513 public
K–12 schools; 14,315 school districts;
and 6,585 postsecondary institutions.
(Excluded are data from private
institutions that do not receive Federal
funding from the Department and,
therefore, are not subject to FERPA.)
Based on this analysis, the Secretary has
concluded that the changes in these
proposed regulations would not impose
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
significant net costs on educational
agencies and institutions. Analyses of
specific provisions follow.
Alumni Records
The proposed regulations clarify the
current exclusion from the definition of
education records for records that only
contain information about an individual
after he or she is no longer a student,
which is intended to cover records of
alumni and similar activities. Some
institutions have applied this exclusion
to records that are created after a
student has ceased attending the
institution but that are directly related
to his or her attendance as a student,
such as investigatory reports and
settlement agreements about incidents
and injuries that occurred during the
student’s enrollment. The amendment
would clarify that this provision applies
only to records created or received by an
educational agency or institution after
an individual is no longer a student in
attendance and that are not directly
related to the individual’s attendance as
a student.
We believe that most of the more than
102,000 K–12 schools and
postsecondary institutions subject to
FERPA already adhere to this revised
interpretation in the proposed
regulations and that for those that do
not, the number of records affected is
likely to be very small. Assuming that
each year one half of one percent of the
66,596,000 students enrolled in these
institutions have one record each
affected by the proposed change, in the
year following issuance of the
regulations institutions would be
required to try to obtain written consent
before releasing 332,980 records that
they would otherwise release without
consent. We estimate that for the first
year contacting the affected parent or
student to seek and process written
consent for these disclosures would take
approximately 1⁄2 hour per record at an
average cost of $32.67 per hour for a
total cost of $5,439,229. (Compensation
for administrative staff time is based on
published estimates for 2005 from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ National
Compensation Survey of $23.50 per
hour plus an average 39 percent benefit
load for Level 8 administrators in
education and related fields.)
In terms of benefits, the proposed
change would protect the privacy of
parents and students by clarifying the
intent of this regulatory exclusion and
help prevent the unlawful disclosure of
these records. It would also provide
greater legal certainty and therefore
some cost savings for those agencies and
institutions that may be required to
litigate this issue in connection with a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
request under a State open records act
or other legal proceeding. For these
reasons, we believe that the overall
benefits outweigh the potential costs of
this change.
Exclusion of SSNs and ID Numbers
From Directory Information
The proposed regulations clarify that
a student’s SSN or student ID number is
personally identifiable information that
may not be disclosed as directory
information under FERPA. The
principal effect of this change is that
educational agencies and institutions
may not post grades by SSN or student
ID number and may not include these
identifiers with directory information
they disclose about a student, such as a
student’s name, school, and grade level
or class, on rosters or sign-in sheets that
are made available to students and
others. (Educational agencies and
institutions may continue to include
SSNs and student ID numbers on class
rosters and schedules that are disclosed
only to teachers and other school
officials who have legitimate
educational interests in this
information.)
A class roster or sign-in sheet that
contains or requires students to affix
their SSN or student ID number makes
that information available to every
individual who signs-in or sees the
document and who may be able to use
it for identity theft or to find out a
student’s grades or other confidential
educational information. In regard to
posting grades, an individual who
knows which classes a particular
student attends may be able to ascertain
that student’s SSN or student ID number
by comparing class lists for repeat
numbers. Because SSNs are not
randomly generated, it may be possible
to identify a student by State of origin
based on the first three (area) digits of
the number, or by date of issuance based
on the two middle digits.
The Department does not have any
actual data on how many class or test
grades are posted by SSN or student ID
number at this time, but we believe that
the practice is rare or non-existent
below the secondary level. Although the
practice was once widespread,
particularly at the postsecondary level,
anecdotal evidence suggests that as a
result of consistent training and
informal guidance by the Department
over the past several years, together
with the increased attention States and
privacy advocates have given to the use
of SSNs, many institutions now either
require teachers to use a code known
only to the teacher and the student or
prohibit posting of grades entirely.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15593
The most recent figures available from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004)
indicate that there are approximately 2.7
million secondary and postsecondary
teachers in the United States. As noted
above, we assume that most of these
teachers either do not post grades at all
or already use a code known only to the
teacher or student. We assume further
that additional costs to deliver grades
personally in the classroom or through
electronic mail, instead of posting,
would be minimal. For purposes of this
analysis, we estimate that no more than
5 percent of 2.7 million, or 135,000
teachers would continue to post grades
and need to convert to a code, which
would require them to spend an average
of one half hour each semester
establishing and managing grading
codes for students. Using the Bureau of
Labor Statistics’ published estimate of
average hourly wages of $42.98 for
teachers at postsecondary institutions
and an average 39 percent load for
benefits, we estimate an average cost of
$59.74 per teacher per year, for a total
of $8,064,900. Parents and students
should incur no costs except for the
time they might have to spend to
contact the school official if they forget
the student’s grading code.
This proposed change will benefit
parents and students and educational
agencies and institutions by reducing
the risk of identity theft associated with
posting grades by SSN, and the risk of
disclosing grades and other confidential
educational information caused by
posting grades by student ID number. It
is difficult to quantify the value of
reducing the risk of identity theft. We
note, however, that for the past few
years over one-third of complaints filed
with the Federal Trade Commission
have been for identity theft. See Federal
Trade Commission, Consumer Fraud
and Identity Theft Data, February 2008,
at page 2.
According to the Better Business
Bureau, identity theft cost businesses
nearly $57 billion in 2006 while victims
spent an average of 40 hours resolving
identity theft issues. It is even more
difficult to measure the benefits of
enhanced privacy protections for
student grades and other confidential
educational information from education
records because the value individuals
place on the privacy of this information
varies considerably and because we are
unable to determine how often it
happens. Therefore, the Secretary seeks
public comment on the value of these
enhanced privacy protections in relation
to the expected costs to implement the
proposed changes.
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
15594
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Prohibit Use of SSN To Confirm
Directory Information
The proposed regulations would
prevent an educational agency or
institution (or a contractor providing
services for an agency or institution)
from using a student’s SSN (or student
ID number) to identify the student when
releasing or confirming directory
information. This occurs, for example,
when a prospective employer or
insurance company telephones an
institution or submits a Web site inquiry
to find out whether a particular
individual is enrolled in or has
graduated from the institution. While
this provision would apply to
educational agencies and institutions at
all grade levels, we believe that it will
affect mainly postsecondary institutions
because enrollment and degree
verification services typically are not
offered at the K–12 level.
A survey conducted in March 2002 by
the American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers
(AACRAO) showed that nearly half of
postsecondary institutions used SSNs as
the primary means to track students in
academic databases. Since then, use of
SSNs as a student identifier has
decreased significantly in response to
public concern about identity theft.
While postsecondary institutions may
continue to collect students SSNs for
financial aid and tax reporting purposes,
many have ceased using the SSN as a
student identifier either voluntarily or
in compliance with State laws. Also,
over the past several years the
Department has provided training on
this issue and published on the Office
Web site a 2004 letter finding a
postsecondary institution in violation of
FERPA when its agent used a student’s
SSN, without consent, to search its
database to verify that the student had
received a degree. https://www.ed.gov/
policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/library/
auburnuniv.html. In these
circumstances, we estimate that
possibly one-quarter of the nearly 6,585
postsecondary institutions in the United
States, or 1,646 institutions, may ask a
requester to provide the student’s SSN
(or student ID number) in order to locate
the record and respond to an inquiry for
directory information.
Under the proposed amendment an
educational agency or institution that
identifies students by SSN (or student
ID number) when releasing directory
information will either have to ensure
that the student has provided written
consent to disclose the number to the
requester, or rely solely on a student’s
name and other properly designated
directory information to identify the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
student, such as address, date of birth,
dates of enrollment, year of graduation,
major field of study, degree received,
etc. Costs to an institution of ensuring
that students have provided written
consent for these disclosures, for
example by requiring the requester to
fax copies of each written consent to the
institution or its contractor, or making
arrangements to receive them
electronically, could be substantial for
large institutions and organizations that
utilize electronic recordkeeping
systems. Institutions may choose
instead to conduct these verifications
without using SSNs or student IDs,
which may make it more difficult to
ensure that the correct student has been
identified because of the known
problems in matching records without
the use of a universal identifier.
Increased institutional costs either to
verify that the student has provided
consent or to conduct a search without
use of SSNs or student ID numbers
should be less for smaller institutions,
where the chances of duplicate records
are decreased. Parents and students may
incur additional costs if an employer,
insurance company, or other requester
is unable to verify enrollment or
graduation based solely on directory
information and written consent for
disclosure of the student’s SSN or
student ID number is required. Due to
the difficulty in ascertaining actual costs
associated with these transactions, the
Secretary asks for public comment on
costs that educational agencies and
institutions and parents and students
would expect to incur under this
proposed change.
The enhanced privacy protections of
this proposed amendment will benefit
students and parents by reducing the
risk that third parties will use a
student’s SSN without consent and
possibly confirm a questionable number
for purposes of identity theft. Similarly,
preventing institutions from implicitly
confirming a questionable student ID
number will help prevent unauthorized
individuals from obtaining confidential
information from education records. In
evaluating the benefits or value of this
proposed change, we note that this
provision does not affect any activity
that an educational agency or institution
is required to perform under FERPA or
other Federal law, such as using SSNs
to confirm enrollment for student loan
purposes, which is permitted without
consent under the financial aid
exception in § 99.31.
User ID for Electronic Communications
The proposed regulations would
allow an educational agency or
institution to disclose as directory
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
information a student’s user ID or other
electronic identifier so long as it
functions like a name, that is, it cannot
be used without a PIN, password, or
some other authentication factor to gain
access to education records. This change
would impose no costs and would result
in regulatory relief by allowing agencies
and institutions to use directory services
in electronic communications systems
without incurring the administrative
costs associated with obtaining student
consent for these disclosures.
Costs related to honoring a student’s
decision to opt out of these disclosures
should be minimal because of the small
number of students who would elect not
to participate in electronic
communications at their school.
Applying this proposed change to
records of both K–12 and postsecondary
students and assuming that one-tenth of
a percent of parents and eligible
students would opt out of these
disclosures, we estimate that
institutions would have to flag the
records of approximately 67,000
students for opt out purposes.
Recognizing that institutions currently
flag records for directory information
opt outs for other purposes, the
Secretary seeks public comment on the
administrative and information
technology costs institutions would
incur to process these potential new
directory information opt outs.
Student Anonymity in the Classroom
The proposed regulations would
ensure that parents and students do not
use the right to opt out of directory
information disclosures to prevent
disclosure of the student’s name,
institutional e-mail address, or
electronic identifier in the student’s
physical or electronic classroom. We
estimate that this change would result
in a small net benefit to educational
agencies and institutions because they
would have greater legal certainty about
this element of classroom
administration, and it would reduce the
institutional costs of responding to
complaints from students and parents
about the release of this information.
FERPA could not be used to allow
students to remain anonymous to their
peers in class, but the safety of students
might be enhanced by allowing them to
know the name of every student in their
class.
Disclosing Education Records to New
School and to Party Identified as
Source Record
The proposed amendment to
§ 99.31(a)(2) would allow an
educational agency or institution to
disclose education records, or
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
personally identifiable information from
education records, to a student’s new
school even after the student is already
attending the new school so long as the
disclosure relates to the student’s
enrollment in the new school. This
change would provide regulatory relief
by reducing legal uncertainty about how
long a school may continue to send
records or information to a student’s
new school, without consent, under the
‘‘seeks or intends to enroll’’ exception.
The proposed amendment to the
definition of disclosure in § 99.3 would
allow a school that has concerns about
the validity of a transcript, letter of
recommendation, or other record to
return these documents (or personally
identifiable information from these
documents) to the student’s previous
school or other party identified as the
source of the record in order to resolve
questions about their validity.
Combined with the proposed change to
§ 99.31(a)(2), discussed earlier in this
analysis, this change would also allow
the student’s previous school to
continue to send education records, or
clarification about education records, to
the student’s new school in response to
questions about the validity or meaning
of records sent previously by that party.
We believe that these changes would
provide significant regulatory relief to
educational agencies and institutions by
helping to reduce transcript and other
educational fraud based on falsified
records.
Outsourcing
The proposed regulations would
allow educational agencies and
institutions to disclose education
records, or personally identifiable
information from education records,
without consent to contractors,
volunteers, and other non-employees
performing institutional services and
functions as school officials. The agency
or institution may have to amend its
annual notification of FERPA rights to
include these parties as school officials
with legitimate educational interests.
This change would provide regulatory
relief by permitting and clarifying the
conditions for a non-consensual
disclosure of education records that is
not allowed under current regulations.
Our experience suggests that virtually
all of the more than 102,000 schools
subject to FERPA will take advantage of
this provision. We have no actual data
on how many school districts publish
annual FERPA notifications for the
96,513 K–12 public schools included in
the 102,000 total and, therefore, how
many entities would be affected by this
requirement. However, since
educational agencies and institutions
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
are already required under existing
regulations to publish a FERPA
notification annually, we believe that
costs to include this new information
would be minimal.
Access Control and Tracking
The proposed regulations in
§ 99.31(a)(1)(ii) would require an
educational agency or institution to use
reasonable methods to ensure that
teachers and other school officials
obtain access to only those education
records in which they have legitimate
educational interests. This requirement
would apply to both computerized or
electronic records and paper, film, and
other hard copy records. Agencies and
institutions that choose not to restrict
access with physical or technological
controls, such as locked cabinets and
role-based software security, must
ensure that their policy is effective and
that school officials gain access to only
those education records in which they
have legitimate educational interests.
Information gathered by the director
of the Family Policy Compliance Office
at numerous FERPA training sessions
and seminars, along with recent
discussions with software vendors and
educational organizations, indicates that
the vast majority of mid and large size
school districts and postsecondary
institutions currently use commercial
software for student information
systems. We have been advised that
these systems all include role-based
security features that allow
administrators to control access to
specific records, screens, or fields
according to a school official’s duties
and responsibilities; these systems also
typically contain transactional logging
features that document or track a user’s
actual access to particular records,
which an agency or institution may use
to help ensure the effectiveness of its
policies regarding access to education
records. Educational agencies and
institutions that already have these
systems would incur no additional costs
to comply with the proposed
regulations.
For purposes of this analysis we
excluded from a total of 14,315 school
districts and 6,585 postsecondary
institutions those with more than 1,000
students, for a total of 6,998 small K–12
districts and 3,933 small postsecondary
institutions that may not have software
with access control security features.
The director’s discussions with
numerous SEAs and local districts
suggest that the vast majority of these
small districts and institutions do not
make education records available to
school officials electronically or by
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15595
computer but instead use some system
of administrative and physical controls.
We estimate for this analysis that 20
percent, or 1,400, of these small districts
and institutions use home-built
computerized or electronic systems that
may not have the role-based security
features of commercial software. The
most recent published estimate we have
for software costs comes from the final
Standards for Privacy of Individually
Identifiable Health Information under
the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA
Privacy Rule) published by the
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) on December 28, 2000,
which estimated that the cost of
software upgrades to track the
disclosure of medical records would be
$35,000 initially for each hospital. 65
FR 82462, 82768. We determined that
use of the cost estimate from the HIPAA
Privacy Rule was appropriate because,
as discussed above, software that tracks
disclosure history can also be used to
control or restrict access to electronic
records. Recent discussions with
information technology (IT) staff in the
Department suggested that it was
reasonable to conclude that an
institutional license for software that
controls and tracks access to electronic
records would cost approximately
$35,000 at this time; adjustments for
inflation were not deemed necessary
because software costs do not track with
inflation in as straightforward a way as
do other goods and services. Further,
while discussions with HHS staff
indicate that the disclosure tracking
software cost estimates in the HIPAA
Privacy Rule preamble were provided
primarily with hospitals and larger
institutions in mind, the Department’s
IT staff found no difference between
software costs depending on the size of
the institutions.
Based on these determinations and
assumptions, if 1,400 small K–12
districts and postsecondary institutions
purchased student information software
to comply with the proposed
regulations, they would incur estimated
costs of $49,000,000. We believe that the
remaining 5,600 small districts and
institutions would not purchase new
software because they do not make
education records available
electronically and rely instead on less
costly administrative and physical
methods to control access to records by
school officials. Districts and
institutions that provide school officials
with open access to education records
may need to devote some additional
administrative staff time to ensuring
that their policies are effective and that
they remain in compliance with the
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
15596
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
legitimate educational interest
requirement with respect to school
officials who access records. However,
no reliable estimates exist for the
average number of teachers and other
school officials who access education
records or the number of times access is
sought. Accordingly, we are seeking
public comment on any potential net
costs associated with this proposed
requirement for ensuring that legitimate
educational interest policies are
effective.
Identification and Authentication of
Identity
The proposed regulations in § 99.31(c)
would require educational agencies and
institutions to use reasonable methods
to identify and authenticate the identity
of parents, students, school officials and
other parties to whom the agency or
institution discloses personally
identifiable information from education
records. They would impose no new
costs for educational agencies and
institutions that disclose hard copy
records through the U.S. postal service
or private delivery services with use of
the recipient’s name and last known
official address. We were unable to find
reliable data that would allow us to
estimate the additional administrative
time that educational agencies and
institutions would incur to check photo
identification, where appropriate, when
releasing education records in person
and seek public comment on this point.
Authentication of identity for
electronic records involves a wider
array of security options because of
continuing advances in technologies but
is not necessarily more costly than
authentication of identity for hard copy
records. We assume that educational
agencies and institutions that require
users to enter a secret password or PIN
to authenticate identity will deliver the
password or PIN through the U.S. postal
service or in person. We estimate that
no new costs would be associated with
this process because agencies and
institutions already have direct contact
with parents, eligible students, and
school officials for a variety of other
purposes and would use these
opportunities to deliver a secret
authentication factor.
As noted above, single-factor
authentication of identity, such as a
standard form user name combined with
a secret password or PIN, may not
provide reasonable protection for access
to all types of education records or
under all circumstances. The Secretary
invites public comment on the potential
costs of authenticating identity when
educational agencies and institutions
allow authorized users to access
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
sensitive personal or financial
information in electronic records for
which single-factor authentication
would not be reasonable.
Redisclosure and Recordkeeping
The proposed regulations would
allow the officials and agencies listed in
§ 99.31(a)(3)(i) (the U.S. Comptroller
General; the U.S. Attorney General; the
Secretary; and State and local
educational authorities) to redisclose
education records, or personally
identifiable information from education
records, without consent under the
same conditions that apply currently to
other recipients of education records
under § 99.33(b). This proposed change
would provide substantial regulatory
relief to these parties by allowing them
to redisclose information on behalf of
educational agencies and institutions
under any provision in § 99.31(a), which
allows disclosure of education records
without consent. For example, States
would be able to consolidate K–16
education records under the SEA or
State higher educational authority
without having to obtain written
consent under § 99.30. Parties that
currently request access to records from
individual school districts and
postsecondary institutions would in
many instances be able to obtain the
same information in a more cost
effective manner from the appropriate
State educational authority, or from the
Department.
In accordance with existing
regulations in § 99.32(b), an educational
agency or institution must record any
redisclosure of education records made
on its behalf under § 99.33(b), including
the names of the additional parties to
which the receiving party may
redisclose the information and their
legitimate interests or basis for the
disclosure without consent under
§ 99.31 in obtaining the information.
The proposed regulations would allow
SEAs and other State educational
authorities (such as higher education
authorities), the Secretary, and other
officials or agencies listed in
§ 99.31(a)(3)(i) to maintain the record of
redisclosure required under § 99.32(b),
provided that the educational agency or
institution makes that record available
to parents and eligible students as
required under § 99.32(c).
SEAs and other officials listed in
§ 99.31(a)(3)(i) would incur new
administrative costs if they elect to
maintain the record of redisclosure for
the educational agency or institution on
whose behalf they redisclose education
records under the proposed regulations.
We estimate that two educational
authorities or agencies in each State and
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the District of Columbia (one for K–12
and one for postsecondary) and the
Department itself, for a total of 103
authorities will elect to maintain the
required records of redisclosures. We
estimate further that these authorities
will need to record two redisclosures
per year from their records and that it
will take one hour of administrative
time to record each redisclosure
electronically at an average hourly rate
of $32.67, for a total annual
administrative cost of $6,730.
(Compensation for administrative staff
time is explained above.) We also
assume for purposes of this analysis that
State educational authorities and the
Department already have software that
would allow them to record these
disclosures electronically.
State educational authorities and
other officials that elect to maintain
records of redisclosures would also have
to make that information available to a
parent or eligible student, on request, if
the educational agency or institution on
whose behalf the information was
redisclosed does not do so. We assume
that few parents and students request
this information and, therefore, use an
estimate that one in one thousand of a
total of 66,596,000 students will make
such a request each year, or 66,596
requests. If it takes one-quarter of an
hour to locate and printout a record of
disclosures at an average administrative
hourly rate of $32.67, the average
annual administrative cost for this
service would be $543,923, plus mailing
costs (at $.41 per letter) of $27,304, for
a total of $571,227. Educational agencies
and institutions themselves would incur
these costs if they make these records of
redisclosure available to parents and
students instead.
The Department believes that the
proposed change would result in a net
benefit to both educational agencies and
institutions and the officials that
redisclose information under this
provision because the redisclosing
parties would not have to send their
records of redisclosure to the
educational agencies and institutions
unless a parent or student requests that
information and the educational agency
or institution wishes to make the record
available itself. Further, the costs to
State authorities and the Department to
record their own redisclosures would be
outweighed by the savings that
educational agencies and institutions
would realize by not having to record
the disclosures themselves.
Notification of Compliance With Court
Order or Subpoena
The proposed regulations would
require any party that rediscloses
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
education records in compliance with a
court order or subpoena under
§ 99.31(a)(9) to provide the notice to
parents and eligible students required
under § 99.31(a)(9)(ii). We anticipate
that this provision will affect mostly
State and local educational authorities,
which maintain education records they
have obtained from their constituent
districts and institutions and, under the
proposed regulations discussed above,
may redisclose the information, without
consent, in compliance with a court
order or subpoena under § 99.31(a)(9).
There is no change in costs as a result
of shifting responsibility for notification
to the disclosing party under this
proposed change. However, we believe
that minimizing or eliminating
uncertainty about which party is legally
responsible for the notification would
result in a net benefit to all parties.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
State Auditors
The proposed regulations would
allow State auditors to have access to
education records without consent
under §§ 99.31(a)(3) and 99.35, which
allows disclosures in connection with
an audit or evaluation of Federal or
State supported education programs, or
for the enforcement of or compliance
with Federal legal requirements related
to those programs. This change would
involve no increased costs and provide
regulatory relief by clarifying that these
disclosures are permitted even if the
State auditor is not a State educational
authority (or other official listed in
§ 99.31(a)(3)(i)).
The proposed change is limited to
disclosures for purposes of an audit,
which is defined as testing compliance
with applicable laws, regulations, and
standards. We believe that this
limitation does not impose additional
costs because a State auditor may
conduct activities outside the scope of
an audit, such as evaluate the
effectiveness of educational programs,
by establishing a contractual
relationship with the State educational
authority or school district or institution
in possession of the records that
qualifies the auditor as an authorized
representative or school official,
respectively.
Directory Information Opt Outs
The proposed regulations clarify that
while an educational agency or
institution is not required to notify
former students under § 99.37(a) about
the institution’s directory information
policy or allow former students to opt
out of directory information disclosures,
they must continue to honor a parent’s
or student’s decision to opt out of
directory information disclosures after
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
the student leaves the institution. Most
agencies and institutions should already
comply with this requirement because
of informal guidance and training
provided by FPCO. We have insufficient
information to estimate the number of
institutions affected and the additional
costs involved in changing systems to
maintain opt out flags on education
records of former students and seek
public comment on the matter.
2. Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the
Presidential Memorandum on ‘‘Plain
Language in Government Writing’’
require each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on
how to make these proposed regulations
easier to understand, including answers
to questions such as the following:
• Are the requirements in the
proposed regulations clearly stated?
• Do the proposed regulations contain
technical terms or other wording that
interferes with their clarity?
• Does the format of the proposed
regulations (grouping and order of
sections, use of headings, paragraphing,
etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
• Would the proposed regulations be
easier to understand if we divided them
into more (but shorter) sections? (A
‘‘section’’ is preceded by the symbol
‘‘§ ’’ and a numbered heading; for
example, § 99.30 Under what conditions
is prior consent required to disclose
information?)
• Could the description of the
proposed regulations in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this preamble be more helpful in
making the proposed regulations easier
to understand? If so, how?
• What else could we do to make the
proposed regulations easier to
understand?
Send any comments that concern how
the Department could make these
proposed regulations easier to
understand to the person listed in the
ADDRESSES section of the preamble.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these
proposed regulations would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that would be
affected by these proposed regulations
are small local educational agencies
(LEAs) that receive Federal funds from
the Department and certain 4- and 2year colleges and for-profit
postsecondary trade and technical
schools with small enrollments that
receive Federal funds, such as student
aid programs under Title IV of the HEA.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15597
However, the regulations would not
have a significant economic impact on
these small agencies and institutions
because the regulations would not
impose excessive regulatory burdens or
require unnecessary Federal
supervision. The regulations would
impose minimal requirements to ensure
that LEAs and postsecondary
institutions comply with the
educational privacy protection
requirements in FERPA.
Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires us to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local elected officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.
‘‘Federalism implications’’ means
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The proposed
regulations in §§ 99.3 through 99.67
may have federalism implications, as
defined in Executive Order 13132, in
that they will have some effect on the
States and the operation of educational
agencies and institutions subject to
FERPA. We encourage State and local
elected officials to review and provide
comments on these proposed
regulations. To facilitate review and
comment by appropriate State and local
officials, the Department will, aside
from publication in the Federal
Register, post the NPRM to the FPCO
Web site and to the Office of Planning,
Evaluation, and Policy Development
(OPEPD) Web site and make a specific
e-mail posting via a special listserv that
is sent to each State department of
education superintendent and higher
education commission director.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These proposed regulations do not
contain any information collection
requirements.
Intergovernmental Review
These proposed regulations are not
subject to Executive Order 12372 and
the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Assessment of Educational Impact
The Secretary particularly requests
comments on whether these proposed
regulations would require transmission
of information that any other agency or
authority of the United States gathers or
makes available.
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
15598
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Department Recommendations for
Safeguarding Education Records
The Department recognizes that
agencies and institutions face significant
challenges in safeguarding educational
records. We are providing the following
information and recommendations to
assist agencies and institutions in
meeting these challenges.
As noted elsewhere in this document,
FERPA provides that no funds
administered by the Secretary may be
made available to any educational
agency or institution that has a policy or
practice of releasing, permitting the
release of, or providing access to
personally identifiable information from
education records without the prior
written consent of a parent or eligible
student except in accordance with
specified exceptions. In light of these
requirements, the Secretary encourages
educational agencies and institutions to
utilize appropriate methods to protect
education records, especially in
electronic data systems.
In recent months the following
incidents have come to the
Department’s attention:
• Students’ grades or financial
information, including SSNs, have been
posted on publicly available web
servers;
• Laptops and other portable devices
containing similar information from
education records have been lost or
stolen;
• Education records, or devices that
maintain education records, have not
been retrieved from school officials
upon termination of their employment
or service as a contractor, consultant, or
volunteer;
• Computer systems at colleges and
universities have become favored targets
because they hold many of the same
records as banks but are much easier to
access. See ‘‘College Door Ajar for
Online Criminals’’ (May 2006), available
at https://www.uh.edu/ednews/2006/
latimes/200605/20060530hackers.html
and July 10, 2006, Viewpoint in
BusinessWeek/Online available at
https://www.businessweek.com/
technology/content/jul2006/
tc20060710_558020.htm;
• Nearly 65 percent of postsecondary
educational institutions identified theft
of personal information (SSNs, credit/
debit/ATM card, account or PIN
numbers, etc.) as a high risk area. See
Table 7, Perceived Risks at https://
www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/
ecar_so/ers/ers0606/Ekf0606.pdf; and
• In December 2006, a large
postsecondary institution alerted some
800,000 students and others that the
campus computer system containing
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
their names, addresses and SSNs had
been compromised.
The Department’s Office of Inspector
General (OIG) noted in Final Inspection
Alert Memorandum dated February 3,
2006, that between February 15, 2005,
and November 19, 2005, there were 93
documented computer breaches of
electronic files involving personal
information from education records
such as SSNs, credit card information,
and dates of birth. According to the
reported data, 45 percent of these
incidents have occurred at colleges and
universities nationwide. OIG expressed
concern that student information may
be compromised due to a failure to
implement or administer proper
security controls for information
systems at postsecondary institutions.
The Department recognizes that no
system for maintaining and transmitting
education records, whether in paper or
electronic form, can be guaranteed safe
from every hacker and thief,
technological failure, violation of
administrative rules, and other causes of
unauthorized access and disclosure.
Although FERPA does not dictate
requirements for safeguarding education
records, the Department encourages the
holders of personally identifiable
information to consider actions that
mitigate the risk and are reasonably
calculated to protect such information.
Of course, an educational agency or
institution may use any method,
combination of methods, or
technologies it determines to be
reasonable, taking into consideration the
size, complexity, and resources
available to the institution; the context
of the information; the type of
information to be protected (such as
social security numbers or directory
information); and methods used by
other institutions in similar
circumstances. The greater the harm
that would result from unauthorized
access or disclosure and the greater the
likelihood that unauthorized access or
disclosure will be attempted, the more
protections an agency or institution
should consider using to ensure that its
methods are reasonable.
One resource for administrators of
electronic data systems is ‘‘The National
Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) 800–100, Information Security
Handbook: A Guide for Managers’’
(October 2006). A second resource is
NIST 800–53, which catalogs
information security controls. Similarly,
a May 22, 2007 memorandum to heads
of federal agencies from the Office of
Management and Budget requires
executive departments and agencies to
ensure that proper safeguards are in
place to protect personally identifiable
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
information that they maintain,
eliminate the unnecessary use of SSNs,
and develop and implement a ‘‘breach
notification policy.’’ This memorandum,
although directed towards federal
agencies, may also serve as a resource
for educational agencies and
institutions. See https://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/
fy2007/m07–16.pdf.
Finally, if an educational agency or
institution has experienced a theft of
files or computer equipment, hacking or
other intrusion, software or hardware
malfunction, inadvertent release of data
to Internet sites, or other unauthorized
release or disclosure of education
records, the Department suggests
consideration of one or more of the
following steps:
• Report the incident to law
enforcement authorities.
• Determine exactly what information
was compromised, i.e., names,
addresses, SSNs, ID numbers, credit
card numbers, grades, and the like.
• Take steps immediately to retrieve
data and prevent any further
disclosures.
• Identify all affected records and
students.
• Determine how the incident
occurred, including which school
officials had control of and
responsibility for the information that
was compromised.
• Determine whether institutional
policies and procedures were breached,
including organizational requirements
governing access (user names,
passwords, PINS, etc.); storage;
transmission; and destruction of
information from education records.
• Determine whether the incident
occurred because of a lack of monitoring
and oversight.
• Conduct a risk assessment and
identify appropriate physical,
technological and administrative
measures for preventing similar
incidents in the future.
• Notify students that the
Department’s Office of Inspector
General maintains a Web site describing
steps students may take if they suspect
they are a victim of identity theft at
https://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
oig/misused/idtheft.html; and https://
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/
misused/victim.html.
FERPA does not require an
educational agency or institution to
notify students that information from
their education records was stolen or
otherwise subject to an unauthorized
release, although it does require the
agency or institution to maintain a
record of each disclosure. 34 CFR
99.32(a)(1). (However, student
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
15599
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
notification may be required in these
circumstances for postsecondary
institutions under the Federal Trade
Commission’s Standards for Insuring
the Security, Confidentiality, Integrity
and Protection of Customer Records and
Information (‘‘Safeguards Rule’’) in 16
CFR part 314.) In any case, direct
student notification may be advisable if
the compromised data includes student
SSNs and other identifying information
that could lead to identity theft.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well
as all other Department of Education
documents published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet
at the following site: https://www.ed.gov/
news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at this site. If you have questions about
using PDF, call the U.S. Government
Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–
888–293–6498; or in the Washington,
DC, area at (202) 512–1530.
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Number does not apply.)
Dated: March 17, 2008.
Margaret Spellings,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Secretary proposes to
amend part 99 of title 34 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 99—FAMILY EDUCATIONAL
RIGHTS AND PRIVACY
1. The authority citation for part 99
continues to read as follows:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g, unless
otherwise noted.
2. Section 99.2 is amended by revising
the note following the authority citation
to read as follows:
§ 99.2 What is the purpose of these
regulations?
*
*
*
*
Note to § 99.2: 34 CFR 300.610 through
300.626 contain requirements regarding the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
3. Section 99.3 is amended by:
A. Adding, in alphabetical order, a
definition for State auditor.
B. Revising the definitions of
Attendance, Directory information,
Disclosure, and Personally identifiable
information.
C. In the definition of Education
records, revising paragraph (b)(5) and
adding a new paragraph (b)(6).
These additions and revisions read as
follows:
§ 99.3 What definitions apply to these
regulations?
*
*
*
*
*
Attendance includes, but is not
limited to—
(a) Attendance in person or by paper
correspondence, videoconference,
satellite, Internet, or other electronic
information and telecommunications
technologies for students who are not
physically present in the classroom; and
(b) The period during which a person
is working under a work-study program.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g)
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 99
Administrative practice and
procedure, Directory information,
Education records, Information, Parents,
Privacy, Records, Social Security
Numbers, Students.
*
confidentiality of information relating to
children with disabilities who receive
evaluations, services or other benefits under
Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). 34 CFR 303.402 and
303.460 identify the confidentiality of
information requirements regarding children
and infants and toddlers with disabilities and
their families who receive evaluations,
services or other benefits under Part C of
IDEA.
*
*
*
*
*
Directory information means
information contained in an education
record of a student that would not
generally be considered harmful or an
invasion of privacy if disclosed.
(a) Directory information includes,
but is not limited to, the student’s name;
address; telephone listing; electronic
mail address; photograph; date and
place of birth; major field of study;
grade level; enrollment status (e.g.,
undergraduate or graduate, full-time or
part-time); dates of attendance;
participation in officially recognized
activities and sports; weight and height
of members of athletic teams; degrees,
honors and awards received; and the
most recent educational agency or
institution attended.
(b) Directory information does not
include a student’s social security
number or student identification (ID)
number.
(c) Directory information includes a
student’s user ID or other unique
personal identifier used by the student
for purposes of accessing or
communicating in electronic systems,
but only if the electronic identifier
cannot be used to gain access to
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
education records except when used in
conjunction with one or more factors
that authenticate the user’s identity,
such as a personal identification
number (PIN), password, or other factor
known or possessed only by the
authorized user.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(5)(A))
*
*
*
*
*
Disclosure means to permit access to
or the release, transfer, or other
communication of personally
identifiable information contained in
education records by any means,
including oral, written, or electronic
means, to any party except the party
identified as the party that provided or
created the record.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1) and (b)(2))
*
*
*
*
*
Education Records
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(5) Records created or received by an
educational agency or institution after
an individual is no longer a student in
attendance and that are not directly
related to the individual’s attendance as
a student.
(6) Grades on peer-graded papers
before they are collected and recorded
by a teacher.
*
*
*
*
*
Personally Identifiable Information
The term includes, but is not limited
to
(a) The student’s name;
(b) The name of the student’s parent
or other family members;
(c) The address of the student or
student’s family;
(d) A personal identifier, such as the
student’s social security number,
student number, or biometric record;
(e) Other indirect identifiers, such as
date of birth, place of birth, and
mother’s maiden name;
(f) Other information that, alone or in
combination, is linked or linkable to a
specific student that would allow a
reasonable person in the school or its
community, who does not have personal
knowledge of the relevant
circumstances, to identify the student
with reasonable certainty; or
(g) Information requested by a person
who the educational agency or
institution reasonably believes has
direct, personal knowledge of the
identity of the student to whom the
education record directly relates.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g)
*
*
*
*
*
State auditor means a party under any
branch of government with authority
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
15600
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
and responsibility under State law for
conducting audits.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(5))
*
*
*
*
*
4. Section 99.5 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (a) as paragraph
(a)(1) and adding a new paragraph (a)(2)
to read as follows:
§ 99.5
What are the rights of students?
(a)(1) * * *
(2) Nothing in this section prevents an
educational agency or institution from
disclosing education records, or
personally identifiable information from
education records, to a parent without
the prior written consent of an eligible
student if the disclosure meets the
conditions in § 99.31(a)(8),
§ 99.31(a)(10), § 99.31(a)(15), or any
other provision in § 99.31(a).
*
*
*
*
*
5. Section 99.31 is amended by:
A. Redesignating paragraph (a)(1) as
paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) and adding new
paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(B) and (a)(1)(ii).
B. Revising paragraph (a)(2).
C. Revising paragraph (a)(6)(ii).
D. In paragraph (a)(9)(ii)(A), removing
the word ‘‘ or’’ after the punctuation ‘‘;’’.
E. In paragraph (a)(9)(ii)(B), removing
the punctuation ‘‘.’’ and adding in its
place the word ‘‘; or’’.
F. Adding paragraph (a)(9)(ii)(C).
G. Adding paragraph (a)(16).
H. Revising paragraph (b).
I. Adding paragraphs (c) and (d).
J. Revising the authority citation at the
end of the section.
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
§ 99.31 Under what conditions is prior
consent not required to disclose
information?
(a) * * *
(1)(i)(A) * * *
(B) A contractor, consultant,
volunteer, or other party to whom an
agency or institution has outsourced
institutional services or functions may
be considered a school official under
this paragraph provided that the outside
party—
(1) Performs an institutional service or
function for which the agency or
institution would otherwise use
employees;
(2) Is under the direct control of the
agency or institution; and
(3) Is subject to the requirements of
§ 99.33(a) governing the use and
redisclosure of personally identifiable
information from education records.
(ii) An educational agency or
institution must use reasonable methods
to ensure that school officials obtain
access to only those education records
in which they have legitimate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:16 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
educational interests. An educational
agency or institution that does not use
physical or technological access
controls must ensure that its
administrative policy for controlling
access to education records is effective
and that it remains in compliance with
the legitimate educational interest
requirement in paragraph
99.31(a)(1)(i)(A).
(2) The disclosure is, subject to the
requirements of § 99.34, to officials of
another school, school system, or
institution of postsecondary education
where the student seeks or intends to
enroll, or where the student is already
enrolled so long as the disclosure is for
purposes related to the student’s
enrollment or transfer.
Note: Section 4155(b) of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 7165(b),
requires each State to assure the Secretary of
Education that it has a procedure in place to
facilitate the transfer of disciplinary records
of a student who was suspended or expelled
by a local educational agency to any private
or public elementary or secondary school in
which the student is subsequently enrolled
or seeks, intends, or is instructed to enroll.
(6) * * *
(ii) An educational agency or
institution may disclose personally
identifiable information under
paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section only if
it enters into a written agreement with
the organization specifying the purposes
of the study. An educational agency or
institution is not required to agree with
or endorse the conclusions or results of
the study. The written agreement
required under this paragraph must
ensure that—
(A) Information from education
records is used only to meet the purpose
or purposes of the study stated in the
written agreement;
(B) The organization conducts the
study in a manner that does not permit
personal identification of parents and
students, as defined in this part, by
individuals other than representatives of
the organization that conducts the
study; and
(C) The information is destroyed or
returned to the educational agency or
institution when it is no longer needed
for the purposes for which the study
was conducted.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) An ex parte court order obtained
by the United States Attorney General
(or designee not lower than an Assistant
Attorney General) concerning
investigations or prosecutions of an
offense listed in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B)
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
or an act of domestic or international
terrorism as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2331.
*
*
*
*
*
(16) The disclosure concerns an
individual required to register under
section 170101 of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994, 42 U.S.C. 14071, and the
information was obtained and disclosed
by the educational agency or institution
in compliance with a State community
notification program under 42 U.S.C.
14071(e) or (j) and applicable Federal
guidelines. Nothing in the Act or these
regulations requires or encourages an
educational agency or institution to
collect or maintain information about
registered sex offenders.
(b)(1) De-identified records and
information. An educational agency or
institution, or a party that has received
education records or information from
education records under this part, may
release the records or information
without the consent required by § 99.30
after the removal of all personally
identifiable information provided that
the educational agency or institution or
other party has made a reasonable
determination that a student’s identity
is not personally identifiable because of
unique patterns of information about
that student, whether through single or
multiple releases, and taking into
account other reasonably available
information.
(2) An educational agency or
institution, or a party that has received
education records or information from
education records under this part, may
release de-identified student level data
from education records for the purpose
of education research by attaching a
code to each record that may allow the
recipient to match information received
from the same source, provided that—
(i) An educational agency or
institution or other party that releases
de-identified data under paragraph (b)
of this section does not disclose any
information about how it generates and
assigns a record code, or that would
allow a recipient to identify a student
based on a record code;
(ii) The record code is used for no
purpose other than identifying a deidentified record for purposes of
education research and cannot be used
to ascertain personally identifiable
information about a student; and
(iii) The record code is not based on
a student’s social security number or
other personal information.
(c) An educational agency or
institution must use reasonable methods
to identify and authenticate the identity
of parents, students, school officials,
and any other parties to whom the
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
agency or institution discloses
personally identifiable information from
education records.
(d) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section do not require an educational
agency or institution or any other party
to disclose education records or
information from education records to
any party.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(5)(A), (b), (h),
(i), and (j))
6. Section 99.32 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(5) to read as
follows:
§ 99.32 What recordkeeping requirements
exist concerning requests and disclosures?
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(5) A party seeking or receiving
records in accordance with
§ 99.31(a)(9)(ii)(A) through (C).
*
*
*
*
*
7. Section 99.33 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e)
to read as follows:
§ 99.33 What limitations apply to the
redisclosure of information?
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(b)(1) Paragraph (a) of this section
does not prevent an educational agency
or institution from disclosing personally
identifiable information with the
understanding that the party receiving
the information may make further
disclosures of the information on behalf
of the educational agency or institution
if:
(i) The disclosures meet the
requirements of § 99.31; and
(ii) The educational agency or
institution has complied with the
requirements of § 99.32(b).
(2) A party that rediscloses personally
identifiable information from education
records on behalf of an educational
agency or institution in response to a
court order or lawfully issued subpoena
under § 99.31(a)(9) must provide the
notification required under
§ 99.31(a)(9)(ii).
(c) Paragraph (a) of this section does
not apply to disclosures under
§ 99.31(a)(8), (9), (11), (12), (14), (15),
(16), and to information that
postsecondary institutions are required
to disclose under the Clery Act to the
accuser and accused regarding the
outcome of any campus disciplinary
proceeding brought alleging a sexual
offense.
(d) An educational agency or
institution must inform a party to whom
disclosure is made of the requirements
of paragraph (a) of this section except
for disclosures made under § 99.31(a)(8),
(9), (11), (12), (14), (15), and (16), and
to information that postsecondary
institutions are required to disclose
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:16 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
under the Clery Act to the accuser and
accused regarding the outcome of any
campus disciplinary proceeding brought
alleging a sexual offense.
(e) If this Office determines that a
third party outside the educational
agency or institution improperly
rediscloses personally identifiable
information from education records in
violation of this section, the educational
agency or institution may not allow that
third party access to personally
identifiable information from education
records for at least five years.
*
*
*
*
*
8. Section 99.34 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii) to read as
follows:
§ 99.34 What conditions apply to
disclosure of information to other
educational agencies and institutions?
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The annual notification of the
agency or institution under § 99.7
includes a notice that the agency or
institution forwards education records
to other agencies or institutions that
have requested the records and in which
the student seeks or intends to enroll;
*
*
*
*
*
9. Section 99.35 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) to read
as follows:
§ 99.35 What conditions apply to
disclosure of information for Federal or
State program purposes?
(a)(1) Authorized representatives of
the officials or agencies headed by
officials listed in § 99.31(a)(3)(i) may
have access to education records in
connection with an audit or evaluation
of Federal or State supported education
programs, or for the enforcement of or
compliance with Federal legal
requirements that relate to those
programs.
(2) Authority for an agency or official
listed in § 99.31(a)(3)(i) to conduct an
audit, evaluation, or compliance or
enforcement activity is not conferred by
the Act or this part and must be
established under other Federal, State,
or local law, including valid
administrative regulations.
(3) State auditors that are not
authorized representatives of State and
local educational authorities may have
access to education records in
connection with an audit of Federal or
State supported education programs.
For purposes of this provision, an audit
is limited to testing compliance with
applicable laws, regulations, and
standards.
(b) * * *
(1) Be protected in a manner that does
not permit personal identification of
individuals by anyone other than the
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15601
officials or agencies headed by officials
referred to in paragraph (a) of this
section, except that those officials or
agencies may make further disclosures
of personally identifiable information
from education records on behalf of the
educational agency or institution in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 99.33(b); and
*
*
*
*
*
10. Section 99.36 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as
follows:
§ 99.36 What conditions apply to
disclosure of information in health and
safety emergencies?
(a) An educational agency or
institution may disclose personally
identifiable information from an
education record to appropriate parties,
including parents of an eligible student,
in connection with an emergency if
knowledge of the information is
necessary to protect the health or safety
of the student or other individuals.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) In making a determination under
paragraph (a) of this section, an
educational agency or institution may
take into account the totality of the
circumstances pertaining to a threat to
the safety or health of a student or other
individuals. If the educational agency or
institution determines that there is
articulable and significant threat to the
health or safety of a student or other
individuals, it may disclose information
from education records to any person
whose knowledge of the information is
necessary to protect the health and
safety of the student or other
individuals. If, based on the information
available at the time of the
determination, there is a rational basis
for the determination, the Department
will not substitute its judgment for that
of the educational agency or institution
in evaluating the circumstances and
making its determination.
*
*
*
*
*
11. Section 99.37 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (b).
B. Adding new paragraphs (c) and (d).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
§ 99.37 What conditions apply to
disclosing directory information?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) An educational agency or
institution may disclose directory
information about former students
without complying with the notice and
opt out conditions in paragraph (a) of
this section. However, the agency or
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
15602
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
institution must continue to honor any
valid request to opt out of the disclosure
of directory information made while a
student was in attendance unless the
student rescinds the opt out request.
(c) A parent or eligible student may
not use the right under paragraph (a)(2)
of this section to opt out of directory
information disclosures to prevent an
educational agency or institution from
disclosing or requiring a student to
disclose the student’s name, electronic
identifier, or institutional e-mail address
in a class in which the student is
enrolled.
(d) An educational agency or
institution may not disclose or confirm
directory information without meeting
the written consent requirements in
§ 99.30 if a student’s social security
number or other non-directory
information is used alone or combined
with other data elements to identify or
help identify the student or the
student’s records.
*
*
*
*
*
12. Section 99.62 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 99.62 What information must an
educational agency or institution submit to
the Office?
The Office may require an educational
agency or institution to submit reports,
information on policies and procedures,
annual notifications, training materials,
and other information necessary to carry
out its enforcement responsibilities
under the Act or this part.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(f) and (g))
13. Section 99.64 is amended by:
A. Revising the section heading.
B. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 99.64 What is the investigation
procedure?
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
(a) A complaint must contain specific
allegations of fact giving reasonable
cause to believe that a violation of the
Act or this part has occurred. A
complaint does not have to allege that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:49 Mar 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
a violation is based on a policy or
practice of the educational agency or
institution.
(b) The Office investigates a timely
complaint filed by a parent or eligible
student, or conducts its own
investigation when no complaint has
been filed or a complaint has been
withdrawn, to determine whether an
educational agency or institution has
failed to comply with a provision of the
Act or this part. If the Office determines
that an educational agency or institution
has failed to comply with a provision of
the Act or this part, it may also
determine whether the failure to comply
is based on a policy or practice of the
agency or institution.
*
*
*
*
*
14. Section 99.65 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 99.65 What is the content of the notice of
investigation issued by the Office?
(a) The Office notifies the
complainant, if any, and the educational
agency or institution in writing if it
initiates an investigation under
§ 99.64(b). The notice to the educational
agency or institution—
(1) Includes the substance of the
allegations against the educational
agency or institution; and
(2) Directs the agency or institution to
submit a written response and other
relevant information, as set forth in
§ 99.62, within a specified period of
time, including information about its
policies and practices regarding
education records.
(b) The Office notifies the
complainant if it does not initiate an
investigation because the complaint
fails to meet the requirements of § 99.64.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(g))
15. Section 99.66 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b), and the
introductory text of paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 99.66 What are the responsibilities of the
Office in the enforcement process?
(a) The Office reviews a complaint, if
any, information submitted by the
educational agency or institution, and
any other relevant information. The
Office may permit the parties to submit
further written or oral arguments or
information.
(b) Following its investigation, the
Office provides to the complainant, if
any, and the educational agency or
institution a written notice of its
findings and the basis for its findings.
(c) If the Office finds that an
educational agency or institution has
not complied with a provision of the
Act or this part, it may also find that the
failure to comply was based on a policy
or practice of the agency or institution.
A notice of findings issued under
paragraph (b) of this section to an
educational agency or institution that
has not complied with a provision of the
Act or this part—
*
*
*
*
*
16. Section 99.67 is amended by:
A. Revising the introductory text of
paragraph (a).
B. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the
punctuation ‘‘;’’ and adding, in its place,
the punctuation ‘‘.’’.
C. In paragraph (a)(2) removing the
word ‘‘; or’’ and adding, in its place, the
punctuation ‘‘.’’.
The revision reads as follows:
§ 99.67 How does the Secretary enforce
decisions?
(a) If the Office determines that an
educational agency or institution has a
policy or practice in violation of the Act
or this part, the Secretary may take any
legally available enforcement action,
including the following enforcement
actions available in accordance with
part E of the General Education
Provisions Act:
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–5790 Filed 3–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
E:\FR\FM\24MRP2.SGM
24MRP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 57 (Monday, March 24, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15574-15602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5790]
[[Page 15573]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Part 99
Family Educational Rights and Privacy; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 15574]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 99
RIN 1855-AA05
[Docket ID ED-2008-OPEPD-0002]
Family Educational Rights and Privacy
AGENCY: Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations governing
education records maintained by educational agencies and institutions
under section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act, which is
also known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, as
amended (FERPA). These proposed regulations are needed to implement
amendments to FERPA contained in the USA Patriot Act and the Campus Sex
Crimes Prevention Act, to implement two U.S. Supreme Court decisions
interpreting FERPA, and to make necessary changes identified as a
result of the Department's experience administering FERPA and current
regulations. These changes would clarify permissible disclosures to
parents of eligible students and conditions that apply to disclosures
in health and safety emergencies; clarify permissible disclosures of
student identifiers as directory information; allow disclosures to
contractors and other outside parties in connection with the
outsourcing of institutional services and functions; revise the
definitions of attendance, disclosure, education records, personally
identifiable information, and other key terms; clarify permissible
redisclosures by State and Federal officials; and update investigation
and enforcement provisions.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 8, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only
one time, in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies.
In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Under
``Search Documents'' go to ``Optional Step 2'' and select ``Department
of Education'' from the agency drop-down menu; then click ``Submit.''
In the Docket ID column, select ED-2008-OPEPD-0002 to add or view
public comments and to view supporting and related materials available
electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including
instructions for submitting comments, accessing documents, and viewing
the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through
the site's ``User Tips'' link.
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you mail or
deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address them to
LeRoy S. Rooker, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., room 6W243, Washington, DC 20202-5920.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments received from
members of the public (including those comments submitted by mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these submissions
available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to include in their comments only
information that they wish to make publicly available on the
Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Moran, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 6W243, Washington, DC 20202-
8250. Telephone: (202) 260-3887.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Invitation To Comment
We invite you to submit comments and recommendations regarding
these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum
effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations
that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in
the same order as the proposed regulations.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed
regulations. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should
take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed regulations in room 6W243, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays. Public comments may also be inspected at www.regulations.gov.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid to an individual with
a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed
regulations. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of
aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Background
These proposed regulations would implement section 507 of the
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) of 2001
(Pub. L. 107-56), enacted Oct. 26, 2001, and the Campus Sex Crimes
Prevention Act, section 1601(d) of the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-386), enacted Oct. 28,
2000, both of which amended FERPA. The proposed regulations also would
implement the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Owasso Independent
School Dist. No. I-011 v. Falvo, 534 U.S. 426 (2002) (Owasso) and
Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (Gonzaga). Finally, the
proposed regulations respond to changes in information technology and
address other issues identified through the Department's experience
administering FERPA, including the need to clarify how postsecondary
institutions may share information with parents and other parties in
light of the tragic events at Virginia Tech in April 2007. The
Department has developed these proposed regulations in accordance with
its ``Principles for Regulating,'' which are intended to ensure that
the Department regulates in the most flexible, equitable, and least
burdensome way possible. These proposed regulations seek to provide the
greatest flexibility to State and local governments and schools while
ensuring that personally identifiable information about students
remains protected from unauthorized disclosure.
Technical Corrections
The proposed regulations correct Sec. 99.33(e) by adding the
statutory
[[Page 15575]]
language ``outside the educational agency or institution'' after the
words ``third party'' in the first sentence. They also correct an error
in the section number cited in Sec. 99.34(a)(1)(ii).
Significant Proposed Regulations
We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the proposed
regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address
proposed regulatory provisions that are technical or otherwise minor in
effect.
1. Definitions (Sec. 99.3)
Attendance
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(6) defines the term student as any
person with respect to whom an educational agency or institution
maintains education records or personally identifiable information but
does not include a person who has not been in attendance at such agency
or institution. The statute does not define attendance.
Current Regulations: As defined in the current regulations, the
term attendance includes attendance in person or by correspondence, and
the period during which a person is working under a work-study program.
The current definition does not address the status of distance learners
who are taught through the use of electronic information and
telecommunications technologies.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations in Sec. 99.3 would
add attendance by videoconference, satellite, Internet, or other
electronic information and telecommunications technologies for students
who are not physically present in the classroom.
Reasons: The proposed regulations are needed to clarify that
students who are not physically present in the classroom may attend an
educational agency or institution not only through traditional
correspondence courses but through advanced electronic information and
telecommunications technologies used for distance education, such as
videoconferencing, satellite, and Internet-based communications.
Directory Information
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(5), (b)(1), and (b)(2) allows
disclosure without consent of information such as a student's name and
address, telephone listing, date and place of birth, major field of
study, etc., defined as directory information, provided that specified
notice and opt out conditions have been met.
Current Regulations: Directory information is defined in Sec. 99.3
as information contained in an education record of a student that would
not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if
disclosed, and includes information listed in FERPA (e.g., a student's
name and address, telephone listing) as well as other information, such
as a student's electronic mail (e-mail) address, enrollment status, and
photograph. Current regulations do not specify whether a student's
Social Security Number (SSN), official student identification (ID)
number, or personal identifier for use in electronic systems may be
designated and disclosed as directory information.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would provide that
an educational agency or institution may not designate as directory
information a student's SSN or other student ID number. However,
directory information may include a student's user ID or other unique
identifier used by the student to access or communicate in electronic
systems, but only if the electronic identifier cannot be used to gain
access to education records except when used in conjunction with one or
more factors that authenticate the student's identity, such as a
personal identification number (PIN), password, or other factor known
or possessed only by the student.
Reasons: SSNs and other student ID numbers are personal identifiers
that are typically used for identification purposes in order to
establish an account, gain access to or confirm private information,
obtain services, etc. The proposed regulations are needed to ensure
that educational agencies and institutions do not disclose these
identifiers as directory information, or include them with other
personally identifiable information that may be disclosed as directory
information, because SSNs and other student ID numbers can be used to
impersonate the owner of the number and obtain information or services
by fraud. The proposed regulations are also needed to clarify that
unique personal identifiers used for electronic communications may be
disclosed as directory information under certain conditions.
Names and addresses are personal identifiers (and personally
identifiable information under Sec. 99.3) that have always been
available for disclosure as directory information under FERPA because
they are generally known to others and often appear in public
directories outside the school context. (It is precisely because names
and addresses are widely available that they may not be used to
authenticate identity, as discussed below in connection with proposed
Sec. 99.31(c).) SSNs and other student ID numbers are also personal
identifiers and personally identifiable information under Sec. 99.3.
Unlike names and addresses, SSNs and other student ID numbers are
typically used to obtain a variety of non-public information about an
individual, such as employment, credit, financial, health, motor
vehicle, and educational information, that would be harmful or an
invasion of privacy if disclosed. An SSN or other student ID number can
also be used in conjunction with commonly available information, such
as name, address, and date of birth, to establish fraudulent accounts
and otherwise impersonate an individual. As a result, under the
proposed regulations, SSNs and other student ID numbers may not be
designated and disclosed as directory information.
Educational agencies and institutions have reported to us that in
addition to needing a traditional student ID number (or SSN used as a
student ID number), they need to identify or assign to students a
unique electronic identifier that can be made available publicly.
(Names are generally not appropriate for these purposes because they
may not be unique to the population.) Unique electronic identifiers are
needed, for example, for students to be able to use portals or single
sign-on approaches to student information systems that provide access
to class registration, academic records, library resources, and other
student services. Much of the directory-based software used for these
systems, as well as protocols for electronic collaboration by students
and teachers within and among institutions, essentially cannot function
without making an individual's user ID or other electronic identifier
publicly available in these kinds of systems.
Some systems, for example, require users to log on with their e-
mail address or other published user name or account ID. (Note that a
student's e-mail address was added to the regulatory definition of
directory information in the final regulations published on July 6,
2000 (65 FR 41852, 41855). Public key infrastructure (PKI) technology
for encryption and digital signatures also requires wide dissemination
of the sender's public key. These are the types of circumstances in
which educational agencies and institutions may need to publish or
disclose a student's unique electronic identifier.
The proposed regulations would permit disclosure of a student's
user ID or other electronic identifier as directory information, but
only if the identifier functions essentially as a name; that is, the
identifier is not used by itself to authenticate identity and cannot be
[[Page 15576]]
used by itself to gain access to education records. A unique electronic
identifier disclosed as directory information may be used to provide
access to the student's education records, but only when combined with
other factors known only to the authorized user (student, parent, or
school official), such as a secret password or PIN, or some other
method to authenticate the user's identity and ensure that the user is,
in fact, a person authorized to access the records.
Note that eligible students and parents have a right under FERPA to
opt out of directory information disclosures and refuse to allow the
student's e-mail address, user ID or other electronic identifier
disclosed as directory information (except as provided in proposed
Sec. 99.37(c), discussed elsewhere in this document). This is similar
to a decision not to participate in an institution's paper-based
student directory, yearbook, commencement program, etc. In these cases,
the student or parent will not be able to take advantage of the
services, such as portals for class registration, academic records,
etc., provided solely through the electronic communications or software
that require public disclosure of the student's unique electronic
identifier.
Disclosure
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1) and (b)(2) provides that an
educational agency or institution subject to FERPA may not have a
policy or practice of releasing, permitting the release of, or
providing access to personally identifiable information from education
records without prior written consent.
Current Regulations: The regulations in Sec. 99.3 define the term
disclosure to mean permitting access to or the release, transfer, or
other communication of personally identifiable information from
education records to any party by any means. The regulations do not
address issues relating to the return of records to the party that
provided or created them.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would exclude from
the definition of disclosure the release or return of an education
record, or personally identifiable information from an education
record, to the party identified as the party that provided or created
the record. This would allow an educational agency or institution
(School B) to send a transcript, letter of recommendation, or other
record that appears to have been falsified back to the institution or
school official identified as the creator or sender of the record
(School A) for confirmation of its status as an authentic record.
School A may confirm or deny that the record is accurate and send the
correct version back to School B under Sec. 99.31(a)(2), which allows
an institution to disclose education records without prior written
consent to an institution in which the student seeks or intends to
enroll, or is already enrolled.
The proposed regulations would also permit a State or local
educational authority or other entity to redisclose education records
or personally identifiable information from education records, without
consent, to the school district, institution, or other party that
provided the records or information.
Reasons: School officials have reported to the Department that they
are receiving with more frequency what appear to be falsified
transcripts, letters of recommendation, and other information about
students from educational agencies and institutions. The proposed
amendment is needed to verify the accuracy of this type of information
and to ensure that the privacy protections in FERPA are not used to
shield or prevent detection of fraud.
Several State educational agencies (SEAs) that maintain
consolidated student records systems have also expressed uncertainty
whether they may allow a local school district to obtain access to
personally identifiable information from education records provided to
the SEA by that district. The amendment is needed to clarify that SEAs
and other parties that maintain education records provided by school
districts and other educational agencies and institutions may allow a
party to obtain access to the specific records and information that the
party provided to the consolidated student records system.
Education Records
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4) provides a broad, general definition
of education records that includes all records that are directly
related to a student and maintained by an educational agency or
institution. Student, in turn, is defined in 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(6) to
exclude individuals who have not been in attendance at the agency or
institution.
Current Regulations: The definition of education records in Sec.
99.3 excludes records that only contain information about an individual
after he or she is no longer a student.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would clarify that,
with respect to former students, the term education records excludes
records that are created or received by the educational agency or
institution after an individual is no longer a student in attendance
and are not directly related to the individual's attendance as a
student.
Reasons: Institutions have told us that there is some confusion
about the provision in the definition of education records that
excludes certain alumni records from the definition. Some schools have
mistakenly interpreted this provision to mean that any record created
or received after a student is no longer enrolled is not an education
record under FERPA. The proposed regulations are needed to clarify that
the exclusion is intended to cover records that concern an individual
or events that occur after the individual is no longer a student in
attendance, such as alumni activities. The exclusion is not intended to
cover records that are created and matters that occur after an
individual is no longer in attendance but that are directly related to
his or her previous attendance as a student, such as a settlement
agreement that concerns matters that arose while the individual was in
attendance as a student.
Statute: The statute does not address peer-grading practices in
relation to FERPA requirements.
Current Regulations: The definition of education records includes
records that are maintained by an educational agency or institution, or
a party acting for the educational agency or institution, but does not
provide any guidance on the status of student-graded tests and
assignments before they have been collected and recorded by a teacher.
Proposed Regulations: Proposed regulations in Sec. 99.3 would
clarify that peer-graded papers that have not been collected and
recorded by a teacher are not considered maintained by an educational
agency or institution and, therefore, are not education records under
FERPA.
Reasons: The proposed regulations are needed to implement the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision on peer-graded papers in Owasso. ``Peer-
grading'' refers to a common educational practice in which students
exchange and grade one another's papers and then either call out the
grade or turn in the work to the teacher for recordation. In Owasso,
the Court held that this practice does not violate FERPA because ``the
grades on students' papers would not be covered under FERPA at least
until the teacher has collected them and recorded them in his or her
grade book.'' Owasso, 534 U.S. at 436.
[[Page 15577]]
Personally Identifiable Information
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1) and (b)(2) provide that an
educational agency or institution may not have a policy or practice of
permitting the release of or providing access to education records or
any personally identifiable information other than directory
information in education records without prior written consent except
in accordance with statutory exceptions.
Current Regulations: The term personally identifiable information
is defined in Sec. 99.3 to include the student's name and other
personal identifiers, such as the student's social security number or
student number. Current regulations also include indirect identifiers,
such as the name of the student's parent or other family members; the
address of the student or the student's family; and personal
characteristics or other information that would make the student's
identity easily traceable.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would add biometric
record to the list of personal identifiers and add other indirect
identifiers, such as date and place of birth and mother's maiden name,
to the list of personally identifiable information. The regulations
would remove language about personal characteristics and other
information that would make the student's identity easily traceable and
provide instead that personally identifiable information includes other
information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a
specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school or
its community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant
circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty.
Personally identifiable information would also include information
requested by a person who the educational agency or institution
reasonably believes has direct, personal knowledge of the identity of
the student to whom the education record directly relates.
Reasons: See the discussion of proposed regulations adding a new
Sec. 99.31(b) for de-identified education records elsewhere in this
document.
State Auditor
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(C), (b)(3), and (b)(5) allows an
educational agency or institution to disclose personally identifiable
information from education records, without prior written consent, to
State and local educational authorities and officials for the audit or
evaluation of Federal or State supported education programs, or for the
enforcement of or compliance with Federal legal requirements that
relate to those programs.
Current Regulations: The current regulations do not address the
disclosure of education records to State auditors.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations in Sec. 99.3 would
define State auditor as a party under any branch of government with
authority and responsibility under State law for conducting audits. We
propose to add a new paragraph (a)(2) to Sec. 99.35 to clarify that
State auditors that are not State or local educational authorities may
have access to education records in connection with an audit of Federal
or State supported education programs.
Reasons: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(3) (section (b)(3) of the statute)
allows disclosure of education records without consent to ``State
educational authorities'' for audit and evaluation purposes. According
to the legislative history of FERPA, section (b)(5) of the statute,
which allows disclosure of education records without consent to ``State
and local educational officials'' for audit and evaluation purposes,
was added in 1979 to ``correct an anomaly'' in which the existing
exception in section (b)(3) was interpreted to preclude State auditors
from obtaining records in order to conduct State audits of local and
State-supported programs.
See H.R. Rep. No. 338, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. at 10 (1979),
reprinted in 1979 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 819, 824. The amended
statutory language in section (b)(5) is ambiguous, however, because it
does not actually mention State auditors and, like section (b)(3),
refers only to educational officials. Over the years several States
have questioned whether this exception includes audits conducted by
legislative branch officials and other parties that may not be
considered educational authorities or officials.
The regulations are needed to clarify that State auditors may
receive personally identifiable information from education records,
without prior written consent, even if they are not considered State or
local educational authorities or officials, provided that they are
auditing a Federal or State supported education program. We are
interested in receiving comments about whether the definition needs to
cover local auditors as well. The exception for disclosure of education
records to State auditors is narrowly limited to audits (defined in
proposed Sec. 99.35 as testing compliance with applicable laws,
regulations, and standards) and does not include the broader concept of
evaluations, for which disclosure of education records remains limited
to educational authorities or officials.
2. Disclosures to Parents of Eligible Students (Sec. Sec. 99.5, 99.36)
Section 99.5(a) (Rights of Students)
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(d) provides that once a student reaches 18
years of age or attends a postsecondary institution, all rights
accorded to parents under FERPA, and the consent required to disclose
education records, transfer from the parents to the student. Under 20
U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(H), an educational agency or institution may
disclose personally identifiable information from an education record
without meeting FERPA's written consent requirement to parents of a
dependent student as defined in 26 U.S.C. 152. Under 20 U.S.C.
1232g(i), an institution of higher education may disclose personally
identifiable information from an education record, without meeting
FERPA's written consent requirement, to a parent or legal guardian of a
student information regarding the student's violation of any Federal,
State or local law, or any rule or policy of the institution governing
the use or possession of alcohol or a controlled substance if the
student is under the age of 21 and the institution determines that the
student has committed a disciplinary violation with respect to such use
or possession. Under 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(I), an educational agency or
institution may disclose personally identifiable information from an
education record, without meeting FERPA's written consent requirement,
to appropriate persons in connection with an emergency if the knowledge
of such information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the
student or other persons.
Current Regulations: Section 99.3 defines an eligible student as a
student who has reached 18 years of age or attends a postsecondary
institution. Section 99.5(a) states that rights accorded to parents,
and consent required of parents, to disclose education records under
FERPA transfer from parents to a student when the student meets the
definition of an eligible student.
Section 99.31(a)(8) provides that an educational agency or
institution may disclose personally identifiable information from
education records without consent to parents of a dependent student as
defined in section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Under
Sec. 99.31(a)(15) written consent is not required, regardless of
dependency status, to disclose to a
[[Page 15578]]
parent of a student at an institution of postsecondary education
information regarding the student's violation of any Federal, State or
local law, or of any rule or policy of the institution, governing the
use or possession of alcohol or a controlled substance if the
institution determines that the student has committed a disciplinary
violation with respect to that use or possession and the student is
under the age of 21 at the time of the disclosure to the parent.
Section 99.31(a)(10) provides that an educational agency or
institution may disclose personally identifiable information from
education records without consent if the disclosure is in connection
with a health or safety emergency under the conditions described in
Sec. 99.36. Section 99.36 provides that an educational agency or
institution may disclose personally identifiable information from an
education record to appropriate parties in connection with an emergency
if knowledge of the information is necessary to protect the health or
safety of the student or other individuals.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations in Sec. 99.5
clarify that even after a student has become an eligible student, an
educational agency or institution may disclose education records to the
student's parents, without the consent of the eligible student, if the
student is a dependent for Federal income tax purposes (Sec.
99.31(a)(8)); in connection with a health or safety emergency (Sec.
99.31(a)(10)); if the student is under the age of 21 and has violated
an institutional rule or policy governing the use or possession of
alcohol or a controlled substance (Sec. 99.31(a)(15)); and if the
disclosure falls within any other exception to the consent requirement
in Sec. 99.31(a) of the regulations, such as the disclosure of
directory information or in compliance with a court order or lawfully
issued subpoena. The proposed regulations in Sec. 99.36(a) would
clarify that an eligible student's parents are appropriate parties to
whom an educational agency or institution may disclose personally
identifiable information from education records without consent in a
health or safety emergency.
Reasons: The Secretary is concerned that some institutions are
under the mistaken impression that FERPA prevents them from providing
parents with any information about a college student. The proposed
regulations are needed to clarify that FERPA contains exceptions to the
written consent requirement that permit colleges and other educational
agencies and institutions to disclose personally identifiable
information from education records to parents of certain eligible
students whether or not the student consents.
Section 99.31(a)(8) permits an educational agency or institution to
disclose education records, without consent, to either parent if at
least one of the parents has claimed the student as a dependent on the
parent's most recent tax return. Because many college students (and 18-
year-old high school students) are tax dependents of their parents,
this provision allows these institutions to disclose information from
education records to the students' parents without meeting the written
consent requirements in Sec. 99.30. (Institutions must first determine
that a parent has claimed the student as a dependent on the parent's
Federal income tax return. Institutions can determine that a parent
claimed a student as a dependent by asking the parent to submit a copy
of the parent's most recent Federal tax return. Institutions can also
rely on a student's assertion that he or she is not a dependent unless
the parent provides contrary evidence.)
The proposed regulations are also needed to clarify that colleges
and other institutions may disclose information from education records
to an eligible student's parents, without consent, under Sec.
99.31(a)(15) if the institution has determined that the student has
violated Federal, State, or local law or an institution's rules or
policies governing alcohol or substance abuse (provided the student is
under 21 years of age), and in connection with a health or safety
emergency under Sec. Sec. 99.31(a)(10) and 99.36 (regardless of the
student's age) if the information is needed to protect the health or
safety of the student or other individuals. These exceptions apply
whether or not the student is a dependent of a parent for tax purposes.
These proposed regulations would clarify the Department's policy with
respect to an agency's or institution's disclosure of information from
education records to parents under the health and safety emergency
exception and do not represent a change in the Department's
interpretation of who may qualify as an appropriate party under the
health or safety emergency exception to the consent requirement. While
institutions may choose to follow a policy of not disclosing education
records to parents of eligible students in these circumstances, FERPA
does not mandate such a policy.
3. Authorized Disclosure of Education Records Without Prior Written
Consent (Sec. 99.31)
Section 99.31(a)(1) (School Officials) Outsourcing
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(A) defines education records to
include records maintained by an educational agency or institution or
by ``a person acting for'' the agency or institution. Under 20 U.S.C.
1232g(b)(1)(A), an educational agency or institution may allow teachers
and other school officials within the institution or agency, without
prior written consent, to obtain access to education records if the
institution or agency has determined that they have legitimate
educational interests in the information.
Current Regulations: Section 99.31(a)(1) allows disclosure of
personally identifiable information from education records without
consent to school officials, including teachers, within the agency or
institution if the educational agency or institution has determined
that they have legitimate educational interests in the information. An
educational agency or institution that discloses information under this
exception must specify in its annual notification of FERPA rights under
Sec. 99.7(a)(3)(iii) the criteria it uses to determine who constitutes
a school official and what constitutes legitimate educational
interests. The recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 99.32(d) do not
apply to disclosures to school officials with legitimate educational
interests. Current regulations do not address disclosure of education
records without consent to contractors, consultants, volunteers, and
other outside parties providing institutional services and functions or
otherwise acting for an agency or institution.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations in Sec.
99.31(a)(1)(i)(B) would expand the school official exception to include
contractors, consultants, volunteers, and other outside parties to whom
an educational agency or institution has outsourced institutional
services or functions that it would otherwise use employees to perform.
The outside party who obtains access to education records without
consent must be under the direct control of the agency or institution
and subject to the same conditions governing the use and redisclosure
of education records that apply to other school officials under Sec.
99.33(a) of the regulations. These proposed regulations supersede
previous technical assistance guidance issued by the Family Policy
Compliance Office (Office) regarding disclosure of
[[Page 15579]]
education records without consent to parties acting for an educational
agency or institution.
Educational agencies and institutions that outsource institutional
services and functions must comply with the annual FERPA notification
requirements under the current regulations in Sec. 99.7(a)(3)(iii) by
specifying their contractors, consultants, and volunteers as school
officials retained to provide various institutional services and
functions. Failure to comply with the notice requirements for school
officials in Sec. 99.7(a)(3)(iii) is not excused by recording the
disclosure under Sec. 99.32. (We note that under current regulations
disclosures to school officials under Sec. 99.31(a)(1) are
specifically excluded from the recordation requirements under Sec.
99.32(d).) As a result, an educational agency or institution that has
not included contractors and other outside service providers as school
officials with legitimate educational interests in its annual FERPA
notification may not disclose any personally identifiable information
from education records to these parties until it has complied with the
notice requirements in Sec. 99.7(a)(3)(iii).
Educational agencies and institutions are responsible for their
outside service providers' failures to comply with applicable FERPA
requirements. The agency or institution must ensure that the outside
party does not use or allow anyone to obtain access to personally
identifiable information from education records except in strict
accordance with the requirements established by the educational agency
or institution that discloses the information.
All outside parties serving as school officials are subject to
FERPA's restrictions on the use and redisclosure of personally
identifiable information from education records. These restrictions
include current provisions in Sec. 99.33(a), which requires an
educational agency or institution that discloses personally
identifiable information from education records to do so only on the
condition that the recipient, including a teacher or other school
official, will use the information only for the purpose for which the
disclosure was made and will not redisclose the information to any
other party without the prior consent of the parent or eligible student
unless the educational agency or institution has authorized the
redisclosure under a FERPA exception and the agency or institution
records the subsequent disclosure in accordance with the requirements
in Sec. 99.32(b).
For example, under the proposed regulations, a party that contracts
with an educational agency or institution to provide enrollment and
degree verification services must ensure that only individuals with
legitimate educational interests obtain access to personally
identifiable information from education records maintained on behalf of
the agency or institution. In accordance with current regulations at
Sec. 99.33(b), a contractor may not redisclose personally identifiable
information without prior written consent unless the educational agency
or institution has authorized the redisclosure under a FERPA exception
and the agency or institution records the subsequent disclosure in
accordance with the requirements in Sec. 99.32(b). Like other school
officials, contractors and other outside parties who provide
institutional services may not decide unilaterally to redisclose
personally identifiable information from education records, even in
circumstances that would comply with an exception in Sec. 99.31(a).
Additionally, records directly related to a student that are
maintained by a party acting for an educational agency or institution
are education records subject to all FERPA requirements. This includes
any new student records created under an outsourcing agreement that are
maintained by the outside service provider.
Reasons: The proposed regulations are needed to resolve uncertainty
about the specific conditions under which educational agencies and
institutions may disclose personally identifiable information from
education records, without prior written consent, to contractors,
consultants, volunteers, and other outside parties performing
institutional services or functions. While there is no explicit
statutory exception to the prior written consent requirement for
disclosures to contractors and other non-employees to whom an
educational agency or institution has outsourced services, we note that
the statutory definition of education records protects records that are
maintained by a party acting for the agency or institution. See 20
U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(A)(ii). Indeed, the Joint Statement in Explanation
of Buckley/Pell Amendment (120 Cong. Rec. S39862, Dec. 13, 1974) refers
specifically to materials that are maintained by a school ``or by one
of its agents'' when describing the meaning of the new term education
records in the December 1974 amendments to the statute.
The Department has long recognized in guidance that FERPA does not
prevent educational agencies and institutions from outsourcing
institutional services and functions and disclosing education records
to contractors and other outside parties performing those services and
functions in appropriate circumstances, such as for legal advice; debt
collection; transcript distribution; fundraising and alumni
communications; development and management of information systems; and
degree and enrollment verification. The Secretary wishes to clarify and
define the scope of this practice to avoid further confusion and
prevent weakening of FERPA's privacy protections because of uncertainty
about the requirements for making these kinds of disclosures.
One of the most frequently used exceptions to the prior written
consent requirement allows teachers and other school officials to
obtain access to education records provided the educational agency or
institution has determined that the school official has legitimate
educational interests in the information. This exception covers not
only teachers and principals, but also school counselors, registrars,
admissions personnel, attorneys, accountants, human resource staff,
information systems specialists, and designated support and clerical
personnel when they need access to personally identifiable information
from education records in order to perform their official functions and
duties for their employer. As noted above, an educational agency or
institution that allows school officials to obtain access to education
records under this exception must, under Sec. 99.7(a)(3), include in
its annual notification of FERPA rights a specification of its criteria
for determining who constitutes a school official and what constitutes
legitimate educational interests under Sec. 99.31(a)(1). Disclosures
to school officials under current regulations are subject to the
restrictions on the use and redisclosure of information in Sec. 99.33
but are exempt from the FERPA recordkeeping requirements in Sec.
99.32.
The proposed regulations are included with the exception for school
officials in Sec. 99.31(a)(1) because we believe that disclosures made
for contract, volunteer, and other outsourced services and functions
should be subject to the same conditions that would apply if the
outside party were, in fact, providing institutional services or
functions as an employee or officer of the educational agency or
institution. In particular, the outside party must be under the direct
control of the agency or institution with respect to the maintenance
and use of personally identifiable information from education records.
The outside party
[[Page 15580]]
must also perform the type of institutional services or functions for
which the agency or institution would otherwise use its own employees.
For example, an institution may disclose education records without
consent under this provision to an outside party retained to provide
enrollment verification services to student loan holders because the
institution would otherwise have to use its own employees to conduct
the required verifications. In contrast, an institution may not use
this provision to disclose education records, without consent, to a
financial institution or insurance company that provides a good student
discount on its services and needs students' ID numbers and grades to
verify an individual's eligibility, even if the institution enters into
a contract with these companies to provide the student discount.
Access to Education Records by School Officials
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(A) provides that an educational
agency or institution may allow teachers and other school officials
within the agency or institution to obtain access to education records,
without prior written consent, if the agency or institution has
determined that the school official has legitimate educational
interests in the information.
Current Regulations: Section 99.31(a)(1) allows an educational
agency or institution to disclose personally identifiable information
from education records without consent to school officials, including
teachers, within the agency or institution if the educational agency or
institution has determined that they have legitimate educational
interests in the information. An educational agency or institution that
discloses information under this exception must specify in its annual
notification of FERPA rights under Sec. 99.7(a)(3)(iii) the criteria
it uses to determine who constitutes a school official and what
constitutes legitimate educational interests. Current regulations do
not specify whether the agency or institution must ensure that school
officials obtain access to only those education records in which they
have legitimate educational interests.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations in Sec.
99.31(a)(1)(ii) would require an educational agency or institution to
use reasonable methods to ensure that teachers and other school
officials obtain access to only those education records in which they
have legitimate educational interests. This requirement would apply to
education records maintained in either paper or electronic format.
Agencies and institutions that choose not to use physical or
technological controls to restrict a school official's access to
education records must ensure that their administrative policy for
controlling access to and maintenance of education records is effective
and that the agency or institution remains in compliance with the
legitimate educational interests requirement in Sec.
99.31(a)(1)(i)(A). (These proposed regulations do not address what
constitutes a legitimate educational interest under the regulations.)
Reasons: The proposed regulations are needed to ensure that
teachers and other school officials only gain access to education
records in which they have a legitimate educational interest. While the
proposed regulations apply to records in any format (as defined in
Sec. 99.3), the need to ensure compliance with the legitimate
educational interest requirement has been driven largely by the
increased use of computerized or electronic recordkeeping systems in
which a user may have access to all records.
Many of the smaller educational agencies and institutions typically
use a combination of physical and administrative methods to restrict
access by school officials to paper copy records. For example, paper
copy records may be maintained in lockable cabinets, desks, or rooms
with distribution of records to school officials controlled by the
teacher, registrar, or other authorized custodian as appropriate. With
the advent of computerized or electronic records, particularly by the
mid-size and larger agencies and institutions, parents and students
have complained that school officials may have unrestricted access to
the records of all students in an institution's or local educational
agency's (LEA) system. Agencies and institutions establishing or
upgrading electronic student information systems have also expressed
uncertainty about what methods they should use to comply with the
legitimate educational interest requirement in this new environment.
Under the proposed regulations, an educational agency or
institution should implement controls to protect student records. These
controls should consist of a combination of appropriate physical,
technical, administrative, and operational controls which will allow
access to be limited when required. (Some examples of possible
information security controls can be found in ``The National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) 800-53, Recommended Security
Controls for Federal Information Systems'' (December 2007). Educational
institutions and agencies are not required to implement the NIST 800-53
guidance, but may find it useful when determining possible controls.)
For example, software used to access electronic records may contain
role-based security features that allow teachers to view only
information about students currently enrolled in their classes.
Similarly, a school principal or registrar may maintain paper records
in locked cabinets and distribute records to authorized officials on an
as needed basis.
An educational agency or institution that does not use some kind of
physical or technological controls to restrict access and leaves
education records open to all school officials may rely instead on
administrative controls, such as an institutional policy that prohibits
teachers and other school officials from accessing records except when
they have a legitimate educational interest. However, an agency or
institution that forgoes physical or technological access controls must
ensure that its administrative policy for controlling access is
effective and that it remains in compliance with the legitimate
educational interest requirement in Sec. 99.31(a)(1). In that regard,
if a parent or eligible student alleges that a school official obtained
access to a student's education records without a legitimate
educational interest, an agency or institution must show that the
school official possessed a legitimate educational interest in
obtaining the personally identifiable information from education
records maintained by the agency or institution. An agency or
institution may wish to restrict or track school officials who obtain
access to education records to ensure that it is in compliance with
Sec. 99.31(a)(1)(i)(A).
The risk of unauthorized access to education records by school
officials means the likelihood that records may be targeted for
compromise and the harm that could result. Methods used by an
educational agency or institution to ensure compliance with the
legitimate educational interests requirement are considered reasonable
under the proposed regulations if they reduce the risk of unauthorized
access by school officials to a level commensurate with the likely
threat and potential harm. The greater the harm that would result from
unauthorized access or disclosure and the greater the likelihood that
unauthorized access or disclosure will occur, the more protections an
agency or institution must use to ensure that its methods are
reasonable. For example, high risk records, such as those that
[[Page 15581]]
contain credit card information, SSNs and other elements used for
identity theft, immunization and other health records, certain records
on special education students, and official transcripts and grades
should generally receive greater and more immediate protection than
medium or low risk records, such as those containing only publicly
releasable directory information. Methods that an educational agency or
institution should use to reduce risk to an acceptable level will
depend on a variety of factors, including the organization's size and
resources. In all cases, reasonableness depends ultimately on what are
the usual and customary good business practices of educational agencies
and institutions, which requires ongoing review and modification of
methods and procedures, where appropriate, as standards and
technologies continue to change.
Section 99.31(a)(2) (Disclosure to a School Where Student Seeks or
Intends To Enroll)
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(B) allows an educational agency or
institution to disclose, under certain conditions, education records to
another school or school system in which the student seeks or intends
to enroll without obtaining the prior written consent of a parent or
eligible student.
Current Regulations: Under Sec. 99.31(a)(2), an educational agency
or institution may disclose education records, without prior written
consent, to officials of another school, school system, or
postsecondary institution where the student seeks or intends to enroll,
provided that the agency or institution complies with the requirements
in Sec. 99.34(a) regarding notification to the parent or eligible
student of the disclosure and, upon request, provide a copy of the
records and an opportunity for a hearing under subpart C of the
regulations.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations in Sec. 99.31(a)(2)
would allow an educational agency or institution to disclose education
records, without consent, to another institution even after a student
has already enrolled or transferred, and not just if the student seeks
or intends to enroll, if the disclosure is for purposes related to the
student's enrollment or transfer.
Reasons: The proposed amendments are needed to resolve uncertainty
about whether consent is required to send a student's records to the
student's new school after the student has already transferred and
enrolled. This proposed exception to the consent requirement is
intended to ease administrative burdens on educational agencies and
institutions by allowing them to send transcripts and other information
from education records to schools where a student seeks or intends to
enroll without meeting the formal consent requirements in Sec. 99.30.
We have concluded that authority to disclose or transfer information to
a student's new school under this exception does not cease
automatically the moment a student has actually enrolled. Rather, an
educational agency or institution may transfer education records to a
student's new school, including a postsecondary institution, at any
point in time if the disclosure is in connection with the student's
enrollment in the new school.
Based on these considerations, we have also determined that an
educational agency or institution may update, correct, or explain
information it has disclosed to another educational agency or
institution as part of the original disclosure under Sec. 99.31(a)(2)
without complying with the written consent requirements in Sec. 99.30.
That is, a student's previous institution is not required to obtain
prior written consent under Sec. 99.30 to respond to the new
institution's request to explain the meaning of education records sent
to it in connection with a student's new enrollment.
Finally, in the aftermath of the shooting at Virginia Tech, some
questions have arisen about whether FERPA prohibits the disclosure of
certain types of information from students' education records to new
schools or postsecondary institutions to which they have applied.
(Further discussion of the tragic events that occurred at Virginia Tech
in April 2007 is included in the discussion of the proposed amendments
to Sec. 99.36, which appears later in this document.) Under Sec.
99.31(a)(2) and Sec. 99.34(a), FERPA permits school officials to
disclose any and all education records, including health and
disciplinary records, to another institution where the student seeks or
intends to enroll.
Section 99.31(a)(6) (Organizations Conducting Studies for or on Behalf
of an Educational Agency or Institution)
Statute: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(F) allows an educational agency or
institution to disclose personally identifiable information from
education records, without consent, to organizations conducting studies
for or on behalf of the agency or institution for purposes of testing,
student aid, and improvement of instruction. The information must be
protected so that students and their parents cannot be identified by
anyone other than representatives of the organization that conducts the
study and must be destroyed when no longer needed for the study. As
explained in Sec. 99.31(a)(6)(iii), failure to destroy information in
accordance with this requirement could lead to a five-year ban on
disclosure of information to that organization.
Current Regulations: The regulations restate the statutory language
that the study is conducted ``for, or on behalf of'' the educational
agency or institution, but do not explain what this language means.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations require an
educational agency or institution that discloses education records
without consent under Sec. 99.31(a)(6) to enter into a written
agreement with the recipient organization that specifies the purposes
of the study. The agency or institution that discloses education
records under this exception does not have to agree with or endorse the
conclusions or results of the study. The written agreement must specify
that information from education records may only be used to meet the
purposes of the study stated in the written agreement and must contain
the current restrictions on redisclosure and destruction of information
requirements applicable to information disclosed under this exception.
Reasons: Research organizations have asked for clarification about
the circumstances in which an educational agency or institution may
disclose to them personally identifiable information from education
records under Sec. 99.31(a)(6)(iii), and educational agencies and
institutions have asked whether they may provide personally
identifiable information to organizations for research purposes without
parental consent even if the educational agency or institution has no
particular interest in the study.
This exception to the consent requirement is intended to allow
educational agencies and institutions to retain the services of outside
organizations (or individuals) to conduct studies for or on their
behalf to develop, validate, or administer predictive tests; administer
student aid programs; or improve instruction. An educational agency or
institution need not initiate research requests or agree with or
endorse a study's results and conclusions under this exception.
However, the statutory language ``for, or on behalf of'' indicates that
the disclosing agency or institution agrees with the purposes of the
study and retains control over the information from education records
that is disclosed.
[[Page 15582]]
The written agreement required under the proposed regulations will help
ensure that information from education records is used only to meet the
purposes of the study stated in the written agreement and that all
applicable requirements are met. (See discussion of Sec. 99.31(b)
below regarding disclosure of de-identified information to independent
educational researchers.)
Section 99.31(a)(9) (USA Patriot Act)
Statute: The USA Patriot Act, Public Law 107-56, amended FERPA by
providing a new subsection 1232g(j), 20 U.S.C. 1232g(j), that
authorizes the United States Attorney General (or designee not lower
than an Assistant Attorney General) to apply for an ex parte court
order (an order issued by a court without notice to an adverse party)
allowing the Attorney General (or designee) to collect education
records from an educational agency or institution, without the consent
or knowledge of the student or parent, that are relevant to an
investigation or prosecution of an offense listed in 18 U.S.C.
2332b(g)(5)(B) or an act of domestic or international terrorism
specified in 18 U.S.C. 2331. The statute requires the Attorney General
(or designee not lower than an Assistant Attorney General) to certify
facts in support of the order and to retain, disseminate, and use the
records in a manner that is consistent with confidentiality guidelines
established by the Attorney General in consultation with the Secretary
of Education. Agencies and institutions are not required to record the
disclosure and cannot be held liable to anyone for producing education
records in good faith in accordance with a court order issued under
this provision.
Current Regulations: The current regulations do not address the
amendments made by the USA Patriot Act.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations add new exceptions
to the written consent requirement in Sec. 99.31(a)(9)(ii) and the
recordkeeping requirement in Sec. 99.32(a) allowing disclosure of
education records without notice in compliance with an ex parte court
order obtained by the Attorney General (or designee) concerning
investigations or prosecutions of an offense listed in 18 U.S.C.
2332b(g)(5)(B) or an act of domestic or international terrorism defined
in 18 U.S.C. 2331.
Reasons: The proposed regulations are necessary to implement the
statutory amendment. An educational agency or institution that is
served with an ex parte court order from the Attorney General (or
designee) under this provision should ensure that the order is facially
valid, just as it does when determining whether to comply with other
judicial orders and subpoenas under Sec. 99.31(a)(9). An educational
agency or institution is not, however, required or authorized to
examine the underlying certification of facts presented to the court in
the Attorney General's application for the ex parte court order.
The proposed regulations provide that an educational agency or
institution may comply with the court order without notice to the
parent or eligible student. (Note that Sec. 99.31(a)(9)(ii)(B) also
allows an educational agency or institution to disclose education
records without notice to representatives of the Attorney General or
other law enforcement authorities who produce a subpoena that has been
issued for law enforcement purposes and the court or other issuing
agency has ordered that the existence or contents of the subpoena or
information furnished in response to the subpoena not be disclosed.)
Section 99.31(a)(16) (Registered Sex Offenders)
Statute: The Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act (CSCPA), section
1601(d) of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of
2000, Public Law 106-386, amended FERPA by adding 20 U.S.C.
1232g(b)(7), which provides that educational agencies and institutions
may disclose information concerning registered sex offenders provided
under State sex offender registration and community notification
programs required by section 170101 of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322, 42 U.S.C. 14071.
Section 170101 contains the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children
and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (Wetterling Act).
Current Regulations: The current regulations do not