Program Integrity Issues, 17598-17600 [2013-06656]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
17598
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: March 12, 2013.
Steven D. Vaughn,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug
Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2013–06126 Filed 3–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[Docket No. USCG–2013–0006]
Special Local Regulation; Southern
California Annual Marine Events for
the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of
regulation.
AGENCY:
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce
the 2013 San Diego Crew Classic Special
Local Regulation located in the
regulated area encompasses that portion
of Mission Bay, San Diego, California
bounded by Enchanted Cove, Fiesta
Island, Pacific Passage and DeAnza
Point, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on April 6,
2013 and 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on April 7,
2013. This action is necessary to
provide to provide for the safety of the
participants, crew, spectators, sponsor
vessels of the event, and general users
of the waterway. During the
enforcement period, no spectators shall
anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the
transit of participants or official patrol
vessels in the regulated area during the
effective dates and times, unless cleared
for such entry by Coast Guard Patrol
Commander or through an official
supporting vessel.
DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR
100.1101 will be enforced from 7 a.m.
to 7 p.m. on April 6, 2013 and 7 a.m.
to 7 p.m. on April 7, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this notice, call
or email Petty Officer Bryan Gollogly,
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone
619–278–7656, email D11-PFMarineEventsSanDiego@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast
Guard will enforce the Special Local
Regulation for the 2013 San Diego Crew
Classic in 33 CFR 100.1101 from 7 a.m.
to 7 p.m. on April 6, 2013 and from 7
a.m. to 7 p.m. on April 7, 2013.
Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101,
a vessel may not enter the regulated
area, unless it receives permission from
the COTP. Spectator vessels may safely
transit outside the regulated area but
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Mar 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede
the transit of participants or official
patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be
assisted by other Federal, State, or Local
law enforcement agencies in enforcing
this regulation.
This notice is issued under authority
of 33 CFR 100.1101 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
In addition to this notice in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will provide
the maritime community with extensive
advance notification of this enforcement
period via the Local Notice to Mariners.
If the Captain of the Port or his
designated representative determines
that the regulated area need not be
enforced for the full duration stated on
this notice, he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant
general permission to enter the
regulated area.
Dated: March 6, 2013.
S.M. Mahoney,
Captain, US Coast Guard, Captain of the Port
San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2013–06587 Filed 3–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 600, 602, 603, 668, 682,
685, 686, 690, and 691
[Docket ID ED–2010–OPE–0004]
RIN 1840–AD02
Program Integrity Issues
Office of Postsecondary
Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final regulations; revisions to
preamble.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On October 29, 2010, the
Department of Education published in
the Federal Register final regulations for
improving integrity in the programs
authorized under title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended
(HEA) (October 29, 2010, final
regulations). This document revises the
preamble discussion to the October 29,
2010, final regulations in accordance
with the remand in Association of
Private Sector Colleges and Universities
v. Duncan (D.C. Cir. 2012).
DATES: These revisions apply to the
preamble for the October 29, 2010,
regulations (75 FR 66832), which were
generally effective July 1, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marty Guthrie, U.S. Department of
Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room
8042, Washington, DC 20006.
Telephone: (202) 219–7031 or by email
at Marty.Guthrie@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at
1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities can
obtain this document in an accessible
format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) by
contacting the contact person listed in
this section.
The
October 29, 2010, final regulations (75
FR 66832) amended the regulations for
Institutional Eligibility Under the HEA,
the Secretary’s Recognition of
Accrediting Agencies, the Secretary’s
Recognition Procedures for State
Agencies, the Student Assistance
General Provisions, the Federal Family
Education Loan (FFEL) Program, the
William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan
Program, the Teacher Education
Assistance for College and Higher
Education (TEACH) Grant Program, the
Federal Pell Grant Program, and the
Academic Competitiveness Grant (AGC)
and National Science and Mathematics
Access to Retain Talent Grant (National
Smart Grant) Programs. This document
revises the preamble discussion to the
October 29, 2010, final regulations in
accordance with the remand in
Association of Private Sector Colleges
and Universities v. Duncan, 681 F.3d
427 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
We note that the Court in APSCU v.
Duncan, also remanded certain
provisions of the Department’s
misrepresentation regulations for
revision consistent with the Court’s
opinion. We will be publishing a
separate notice in the Federal Register
addressing this issue.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access to This Document
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 via the Federal
Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys.
At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other
documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Revisions to the Preamble of the Final
Rule
Current Safe Harbors
We are revising our response to the
third comment under the Current Safe
Harbors heading. Our discussion and
response to this comment that begins in
the first column on page 66874 is
revised as follows:
‘‘Discussion: The Department believes
that an institution’s resolute and
ongoing goal should be for its students
to complete their educational programs.
Employees should not be rewarded
beyond their standard salary or wages
for their contributions to this
fundamental duty.
The safe harbor in
§ 668.14(b)(22)(ii)(E), as promulgated on
November 1, 2002 (67 FR 67048),
permits compensation based upon
students successfully completing their
educational programs or one academic
year of their educational programs,
whichever is shorter. However, as we
discussed in the NPRM, it is the
Department’s experience that
institutions use this safe harbor to
provide recruiters with compensation
that is ‘‘indirectly’’ based upon securing
enrollments in violation of the HEA. 20
U.S.C. 1094(a)(20) (‘‘The institution will
not provide any commission, bonus, or
other incentive payment based directly
or indirectly on success in securing
enrollments or financial aid to any
persons or entities engaged in any
student recruiting or admission
activities or in making decisions
regarding the award of student financial
assistance. * * *’’) In other words,
because a student cannot successfully
complete an educational program
without first enrolling in the program,
the compensation for securing program
completion requires the student’s
enrollment as a necessary preliminary
step.
This is particularly the case with
short-term, accelerated programs, where
the Department was advised in
comments received during and
following the November 2009
Negotiated Rulemaking Meeting that
there is the potential for increased
efforts by institutions to rely upon this
safe harbor to provide incentives to
recruiters. Concern over recruiters
guiding students to short-term programs
was not as prominent when the safe
harbor was adopted in 2002 because the
number of such programs was not as
widespread then, having grown
dramatically in more recent years. The
shorter the program, the more likely the
student will complete the program, thus
rewarding enrollment and completion
notwithstanding the student’s academic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Mar 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
performance or the quality of the
program. We are also concerned that, if
this safe harbor is not removed,
recruiters will steer students to the
shortest possible programs regardless of
whether the programs are appropriate
for the students, or to an even smaller
number of program options where the
recruiter believes completion is most
likely to be obtained. As the primary
function of admissions representatives
is to serve as counselors, their primary
goal should be to make sure that the
student is a good fit for the institution
and the program, to make sure that the
institution and program are a good fit
for the student, and not to enroll the
student if this is not the case. A decision
by a recruiter not to enroll a student
should be considered every bit as
valuable to the institution as a decision
to enroll the student, if, in fact, the
student and the institution or the
program are not a good match.
As discussed in the NPRM, the
Department also is aware of schools that
have devised and operated grading
policies that all but ensure that students
who enroll will graduate, regardless of
their academic performance. Thus, as
explained in comments received during
and following the November 2009
Negotiated Rulemaking Meeting, the
Department believes that retaining this
safe harbor could contribute to lowered
admissions standards, misrepresented
program offerings, lowered academic
progress standards, altered attendance
records, and a lack of meaningful
emphasis on academic performance and
program quality. We also note that
recruiters are aware that many of the
schools that would be most affected by
the removal of the safe harbor have poor
completion rates—approximately 10 to
25 percent.
As a result, if the safe harbor were
retained, in order for recruiters to secure
incentive compensation, they would
likely need to enroll even more marginal
students, and make even greater
unfounded claims about a program, to
increase the potential that some will
actually complete their programs of
instruction. And, of course, there is the
further potential for unscrupulous
actors to manipulate the process to
obtain student completions, through
grade or attendance manipulation.
Accordingly, this safe harbor
ultimately does not benefit students,
and because institutions have sufficient
reasons to value student retention and
completion without providing
incentives to recruiters, we believe it is
appropriate to remove the safe harbor.
We disagree with the commenter who
stated that removal of this safe harbor is
inconsistent with the Administration’s
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17599
goal of increasing student retention in
postsecondary education. Institutions
should not need this safe harbor to
demonstrate their commitment to
retaining students within their program
of instruction.
We disagree with the commenters
who indicated that incentive payments
under this safe harbor have a positive
effect on a student’s educational
experience. There is nothing about the
making of incentive payments to
recruiters based upon student retention
that enhances the quality of a student’s
educational experience or makes it more
likely a student will complete a
program. If the program of instruction
has value and is appropriate for a
student’s needs, a student will likely
enjoy a positive educational experience
regardless of the manner in which the
student’s recruiter is compensated,
whereas retention bonuses can cause
recruiters to pressure students to remain
enrolled even when a student is
dissatisfied with a program or is eligible
for a refund of charges paid. Rather than
providing a benefit by bolstering the
quality of students that are enrolled,
retention of the safe harbor is likely to
perpetuate abuses by fostering
enrollment and retention in programs
that do not best reflect a student’s needs
or desires, but are designed to secure
completion of the programs at all costs.
Finally, the removal of this safe
harbor would not permit payments
based on a student’s employment in the
field of study after graduation. Here
again, the potential for manipulation
and abuse is significant. The
Department’s experience has shown that
some institutions pay incentive
compensation to recruiters based upon
claims that the students whom the
recruiter enrolled graduated and
received jobs in their fields of study.
Yet, included among the abuses the
Department has witnessed, for example,
is a circumstance where the institution
counted a student who studied culinary
arts and was working in an entry-level
position in the fast food industry as
being employed in his field of study.
Such a position did not require the
student to purchase a higher education
‘credential.’ As a result, we believe that
paying bonuses to recruiters based upon
retention, completion, graduation, or
placement should be considered to
violate the HEA’s prohibition on the
payment of incentive compensation.’’
We are also amending our response to
the fourth comment under the Current
Safe Harbors heading. Our discussion
and response to this comment found in
the third column on page 66874 is
amended by adding the following after
the second paragraph of our discussion:
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
17600
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
‘‘In further response to commenters’
questions about whether an institution
could provide incentive compensation
to employees in college diversity offices
who recruit minority students, we note
that the HEA prohibits all direct or
indirect payments of incentive
compensation to personnel or staff
engaged in student recruitment and
does not distinguish between incentives
for personnel or staff recruitment
actions that could have certain effects,
e.g., recruitment of a well-qualified or
diverse student body. The prohibition
thus includes a prohibition on paying
incentive compensation for efforts to
promote diversity at an institution. The
Department’s objective in removing all
of the safe harbors is to separate the
meritorious performance of all
employees from an enrollment-based
compensation system, consistent with
the statute’s language, regardless of
what the purpose of the enrollment
might be.
We also wish to reiterate that the
incentive compensation prohibition is
designed to protect all students from
receiving undue pressure to enroll or to
graduate. The statute and the
implementing regulations ban all
compensation to persons and entities
that directly or indirectly provide an
incentive to encourage enrollment. The
incentive compensation ban is designed,
among other things, to keep students of
all races and backgrounds from being
urged or cajoled into enrolling in a
program that will not best meet their
needs. Minority and low income
students are often the targeted audience
of recruitment abuses, and our
regulatory changes are intended to end
that abuse. It is our expectation and
objective that enrollment of students,
including minority students, against
their best educational interests would be
reduced with the elimination of
improper incentive compensation.
In point of fact, there never was a safe
harbor addressing minority recruitment;
neither the prior regulations nor these
regulations provided a change in this
area. Institutions are encouraged to
continue to enroll all students in
programs of instruction that are
designed to promote their academic
achievement and occupational success.
We believe our regulations encourage
and support this outcome.’’
34 CFR Part 600
Colleges and universities, Foreign
relations, Grant programs—education,
Loan programs—education, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Student aid, Vocational education.
15:13 Mar 21, 2013
34 CFR Part 603
Colleges and universities, Vocational
education.
34 CFR Part 668
Administrative practice and
procedure, Aliens, Colleges and
universities, Consumer protection,
Grant programs—education, Loan
programs—education, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Selective
Service System, Student aid, Vocational
education.
34 CFR Part 682
Administrative practice and
procedure, Colleges and universities,
Loan programs—education, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Student aid, Vocational education.
34 CFR Part 685
Administrative practice and
procedure, Colleges and universities,
Loan programs—education, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Student aid, Vocational education.
34 CFR Part 686
Administrative practice and
procedure, Colleges and universities,
Education, Elementary and secondary
education, Grant programs—education,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Student aid.
34 CFR Part 690
Colleges and universities, Education
of disadvantaged, Grant programs—
education, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Student aid.
34 CFR Part 691
Colleges and universities, Elementary
and secondary education, Grant
programs—education, Student aid.
Dated: March 18, 2013.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2013–06656 Filed 3–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of banda de
Lupinus albus doce (BLAD), a naturally
occurring polypeptide from the
catabolism of a seed storage protein (bconglutin) of sweet lupines (Lupinus
albus), in or on all food commodities
when applied as a fungicide and used
in accordance with label directions and
good agricultural practices. On behalf of
Consumo Em Verde S.A., Bert Volger of
Ceres International LLC submitted a
petition to EPA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of BLAD under the FFDCA.
DATES: This regulation is effective
March 22, 2013. Objections and requests
for hearings must be received on or
before May 21, 2013, and must be filed
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–1026, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West
Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Menyon Adams, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 347–8496; email address:
adams.menyon@epa.gov.
ADDRESSES:
Jkt 229001
40 CFR Part 180
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–1026; FRL–9380–6]
List of Subjects
VerDate Mar<15>2010
34 CFR Part 602
Colleges and universities, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
I. General Information
Banda de Lupinus albus doce (BLAD);
Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance
A. Does this action apply to me?
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17598-17600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06656]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 600, 602, 603, 668, 682, 685, 686, 690, and 691
[Docket ID ED-2010-OPE-0004]
RIN 1840-AD02
Program Integrity Issues
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final regulations; revisions to preamble.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 29, 2010, the Department of Education published in
the Federal Register final regulations for improving integrity in the
programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
as amended (HEA) (October 29, 2010, final regulations). This document
revises the preamble discussion to the October 29, 2010, final
regulations in accordance with the remand in Association of Private
Sector Colleges and Universities v. Duncan (D.C. Cir. 2012).
DATES: These revisions apply to the preamble for the October 29, 2010,
regulations (75 FR 66832), which were generally effective July 1, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marty Guthrie, U.S. Department of
Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8042, Washington, DC 20006.
Telephone: (202) 219-7031 or by email at Marty.Guthrie@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an
accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact
disc) by contacting the contact person listed in this section.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The October 29, 2010, final regulations (75
FR 66832) amended the regulations for Institutional Eligibility Under
the HEA, the Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, the
Secretary's Recognition Procedures for State Agencies, the Student
Assistance General Provisions, the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL)
Program, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, the Teacher
Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant
Program, the Federal Pell Grant Program, and the Academic
Competitiveness Grant (AGC) and National Science and Mathematics Access
to Retain Talent Grant (National Smart Grant) Programs. This document
revises the preamble discussion to the October 29, 2010, final
regulations in accordance with the remand in Association of Private
Sector Colleges and Universities v. Duncan, 681 F.3d 427 (D.C. Cir.
2012).
We note that the Court in APSCU v. Duncan, also remanded certain
provisions of the Department's misrepresentation regulations for
revision consistent with the Court's opinion. We will be publishing a
separate notice in the Federal Register addressing this issue.
Electronic Access to This Document
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
via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys.
At this site you can view this document, as well as all other
documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text
or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you
can limit your search to documents published by the Department.
[[Page 17599]]
Revisions to the Preamble of the Final Rule
Current Safe Harbors
We are revising our response to the third comment under the Current
Safe Harbors heading. Our discussion and response to this comment that
begins in the first column on page 66874 is revised as follows:
``Discussion: The Department believes that an institution's
resolute and ongoing goal should be for its students to complete their
educational programs. Employees should not be rewarded beyond their
standard salary or wages for their contributions to this fundamental
duty.
The safe harbor in Sec. 668.14(b)(22)(ii)(E), as promulgated on
November 1, 2002 (67 FR 67048), permits compensation based upon
students successfully completing their educational programs or one
academic year of their educational programs, whichever is shorter.
However, as we discussed in the NPRM, it is the Department's experience
that institutions use this safe harbor to provide recruiters with
compensation that is ``indirectly'' based upon securing enrollments in
violation of the HEA. 20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(20) (``The institution will not
provide any commission, bonus, or other incentive payment based
directly or indirectly on success in securing enrollments or financial
aid to any persons or entities engaged in any student recruiting or
admission activities or in making decisions regarding the award of
student financial assistance. * * *'') In other words, because a
student cannot successfully complete an educational program without
first enrolling in the program, the compensation for securing program
completion requires the student's enrollment as a necessary preliminary
step.
This is particularly the case with short-term, accelerated
programs, where the Department was advised in comments received during
and following the November 2009 Negotiated Rulemaking Meeting that
there is the potential for increased efforts by institutions to rely
upon this safe harbor to provide incentives to recruiters. Concern over
recruiters guiding students to short-term programs was not as prominent
when the safe harbor was adopted in 2002 because the number of such
programs was not as widespread then, having grown dramatically in more
recent years. The shorter the program, the more likely the student will
complete the program, thus rewarding enrollment and completion
notwithstanding the student's academic performance or the quality of
the program. We are also concerned that, if this safe harbor is not
removed, recruiters will steer students to the shortest possible
programs regardless of whether the programs are appropriate for the
students, or to an even smaller number of program options where the
recruiter believes completion is most likely to be obtained. As the
primary function of admissions representatives is to serve as
counselors, their primary goal should be to make sure that the student
is a good fit for the institution and the program, to make sure that
the institution and program are a good fit for the student, and not to
enroll the student if this is not the case. A decision by a recruiter
not to enroll a student should be considered every bit as valuable to
the institution as a decision to enroll the student, if, in fact, the
student and the institution or the program are not a good match.
As discussed in the NPRM, the Department also is aware of schools
that have devised and operated grading policies that all but ensure
that students who enroll will graduate, regardless of their academic
performance. Thus, as explained in comments received during and
following the November 2009 Negotiated Rulemaking Meeting, the
Department believes that retaining this safe harbor could contribute to
lowered admissions standards, misrepresented program offerings, lowered
academic progress standards, altered attendance records, and a lack of
meaningful emphasis on academic performance and program quality. We
also note that recruiters are aware that many of the schools that would
be most affected by the removal of the safe harbor have poor completion
rates--approximately 10 to 25 percent.
As a result, if the safe harbor were retained, in order for
recruiters to secure incentive compensation, they would likely need to
enroll even more marginal students, and make even greater unfounded
claims about a program, to increase the potential that some will
actually complete their programs of instruction. And, of course, there
is the further potential for unscrupulous actors to manipulate the
process to obtain student completions, through grade or attendance
manipulation.
Accordingly, this safe harbor ultimately does not benefit students,
and because institutions have sufficient reasons to value student
retention and completion without providing incentives to recruiters, we
believe it is appropriate to remove the safe harbor.
We disagree with the commenter who stated that removal of this safe
harbor is inconsistent with the Administration's goal of increasing
student retention in postsecondary education. Institutions should not
need this safe harbor to demonstrate their commitment to retaining
students within their program of instruction.
We disagree with the commenters who indicated that incentive
payments under this safe harbor have a positive effect on a student's
educational experience. There is nothing about the making of incentive
payments to recruiters based upon student retention that enhances the
quality of a student's educational experience or makes it more likely a
student will complete a program. If the program of instruction has
value and is appropriate for a student's needs, a student will likely
enjoy a positive educational experience regardless of the manner in
which the student's recruiter is compensated, whereas retention bonuses
can cause recruiters to pressure students to remain enrolled even when
a student is dissatisfied with a program or is eligible for a refund of
charges paid. Rather than providing a benefit by bolstering the quality
of students that are enrolled, retention of the safe harbor is likely
to perpetuate abuses by fostering enrollment and retention in programs
that do not best reflect a student's needs or desires, but are designed
to secure completion of the programs at all costs.
Finally, the removal of this safe harbor would not permit payments
based on a student's employment in the field of study after graduation.
Here again, the potential for manipulation and abuse is significant.
The Department's experience has shown that some institutions pay
incentive compensation to recruiters based upon claims that the
students whom the recruiter enrolled graduated and received jobs in
their fields of study. Yet, included among the abuses the Department
has witnessed, for example, is a circumstance where the institution
counted a student who studied culinary arts and was working in an
entry-level position in the fast food industry as being employed in his
field of study. Such a position did not require the student to purchase
a higher education `credential.' As a result, we believe that paying
bonuses to recruiters based upon retention, completion, graduation, or
placement should be considered to violate the HEA's prohibition on the
payment of incentive compensation.''
We are also amending our response to the fourth comment under the
Current Safe Harbors heading. Our discussion and response to this
comment found in the third column on page 66874 is amended by adding
the following after the second paragraph of our discussion:
[[Page 17600]]
``In further response to commenters' questions about whether an
institution could provide incentive compensation to employees in
college diversity offices who recruit minority students, we note that
the HEA prohibits all direct or indirect payments of incentive
compensation to personnel or staff engaged in student recruitment and
does not distinguish between incentives for personnel or staff
recruitment actions that could have certain effects, e.g., recruitment
of a well-qualified or diverse student body. The prohibition thus
includes a prohibition on paying incentive compensation for efforts to
promote diversity at an institution. The Department's objective in
removing all of the safe harbors is to separate the meritorious
performance of all employees from an enrollment-based compensation
system, consistent with the statute's language, regardless of what the
purpose of the enrollment might be.
We also wish to reiterate that the incentive compensation
prohibition is designed to protect all students from receiving undue
pressure to enroll or to graduate. The statute and the implementing
regulations ban all compensation to persons and entities that directly
or indirectly provide an incentive to encourage enrollment. The
incentive compensation ban is designed, among other things, to keep
students of all races and backgrounds from being urged or cajoled into
enrolling in a program that will not best meet their needs. Minority
and low income students are often the targeted audience of recruitment
abuses, and our regulatory changes are intended to end that abuse. It
is our expectation and objective that enrollment of students, including
minority students, against their best educational interests would be
reduced with the elimination of improper incentive compensation.
In point of fact, there never was a safe harbor addressing minority
recruitment; neither the prior regulations nor these regulations
provided a change in this area. Institutions are encouraged to continue
to enroll all students in programs of instruction that are designed to
promote their academic achievement and occupational success. We believe
our regulations encourage and support this outcome.''
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 600
Colleges and universities, Foreign relations, Grant programs--
education, Loan programs--education, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Student aid, Vocational education.
34 CFR Part 602
Colleges and universities, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
34 CFR Part 603
Colleges and universities, Vocational education.
34 CFR Part 668
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Colleges and
universities, Consumer protection, Grant programs--education, Loan
programs--education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Selective Service System, Student aid, Vocational education.
34 CFR Part 682
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities,
Loan programs--education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Student aid, Vocational education.
34 CFR Part 685
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities,
Loan programs--education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Student aid, Vocational education.
34 CFR Part 686
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities,
Education, Elementary and secondary education, Grant programs--
education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid.
34 CFR Part 690
Colleges and universities, Education of disadvantaged, Grant
programs--education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student
aid.
34 CFR Part 691
Colleges and universities, Elementary and secondary education,
Grant programs--education, Student aid.
Dated: March 18, 2013.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2013-06656 Filed 3-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
