Office of Postsecondary Education - U.S. Department of Education

66844 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and RegulationsWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES2program within normal time, the typicalcosts for books and supplies (unlessthose costs are included as part oftuition and fees), and the amount ofroom and board, if applicable. Theinstitution may include information onother costs, such as transportation andliving expenses, but must provide a Weblink, or access, to the program costinformation it makes available under§ 668.43(a).One-Year ProgramComment: A commenter supportedremoving references to degree programsin proposed § 600.4(a)(4)(iii) believing itwould avoid confusion andmisrepresentation of the programssubject to the proposed regulations ongainful employment. Anothercommenter noted that for technicalreasons the Department should haveinstead revised § 600.4(a)(4)(i)(C).To better understand which programswould be subject to the reporting anddisclosure requirements in proposed§ 668.6, another commenter asked theDepartment to clarify whether thephrase ‘‘fully transferable to abaccalaureate degree’’ means that everycredit must be transferable to thatdegree.Discussion: A program is fullytransferable to a baccalaureate degree ifit meets the requirements in§ 668.8(b)(1)(ii) and qualifies a studentfor admission into a third year of abachelors degree program.We agree that proposed§ 600.4(a)(4)(iii) should be removed inorder to avoid confusion andmisrepresentation of the programssubject to the regulations on gainfulemployment. We also agree that§ 600.4(a)(4)(i)(C) should be revised tostate that an institution of highereducation provides an educationalprogram that is at least a one academicyear training program that leads to acertificate, or other nondegreerecognized credential, and preparesstudents for gainful employment in arecognized occupation.Changes: Proposed § 600.4(a)(4)(iii)has been removed and § 600.4(a)(4)(i)(C)has been revised as noted in thediscussion above.Definition of a Credit Hour (§§ 600.2,602.24, 603.24, and 668.8)GeneralComment: Several commenterssupported the Secretary’s proposeddefinition of a credit hour, including acommenter representing institutionalregistrars and admissions officers. A fewcommenters believed that institutionsare already using this definition. Onecommenter believed that the Secretary’sdefinition aligned with New YorkState’s regulatory definition of asemester hour.Discussion: We appreciate the supportof those commenters who approved ofthe definition of a credit hour. Likesome commenters, we believe that manyinstitutions and others, including States,are already following the definition of acredit hour or a reasonably comparablestandard that would require minimal orno adjustment for purposes ofparticipating in Federal programs.Changes: None.Comment: Several commentersbelieved that during the negotiatedrulemaking process, Federal and non-Federal negotiators reached tentativeagreement on proposed credit-hourregulations that did not include adefinition of a credit hour. A fewcommenters believed that during thenegotiated rulemaking process, mostnon-Federal negotiators were opposedto a Federal credit-hour definition.Several of these commenters believedthat the Department should adhere tothe proposed regulations agreed uponduring the negotiated rulemakingprocess and should remove the credithourdefinition from the regulations.Other commenters believed that theFederal and non-Federal negotiatorsagreed to proposed regulations thatrelied more heavily on accreditingagencies and institutions to determinecredit assignment policies. Thesecommenters believed that the proposedregulations did not appropriately reflectthis position.Discussion: The commenters arecorrect in noting that during thenegotiated rulemaking process tentativeagreement was reached on the proposalrelated to credit hours that did notinclude a definition of a credit hour asproposed by the Department. Tentativeagreement was reached by removing thedefinition from the proposals to satisfyone non-Federal negotiator. The Federaland non-Federal negotiators tentativelyagreed to proposed credit hourregulations that relied heavily onaccrediting agencies and institutions indetermining the appropriate credithours that represented a student’sacademic work. We also agree with thecommenters who proposed continuingthis reliance to a significant degree, andwe believe that this reliance is reflectedin the final regulations. We note thattentative agreements reached during thenegotiated rulemaking meetings are notbinding on the Department in form orsubstance. It is not unusual for most ifnot all of the substance of a tentativeagreement to be included in a proposedregulation because the Department seesVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2the benefits that are realized through thediscussion process. In some cases,though, changes may be made uponfurther reflection, or to reinstateconcepts that may have been removedin furtherance of an overall consensusthat was not achieved. In the case of thedefinition of a credit hour wedetermined that the proposed definitionof a credit hour is necessary to establisha basis for measuring eligibility forFederal funding. This standard measurewill provide increased assurance that acredit hour has the necessaryeducational content to support theamounts of Federal funds that areawarded to participants in Federalfunding programs and that students atdifferent institutions are treatedequitably in the awarding of thosefunds.Changes: None.Institutional Determination andFlexibilityComment: Many commenters believedthat institutions and accreditingagencies should have the ultimateresponsibility for determining academiccredit. Several commenters believedthat institutions must have thediscretion to use their existing systemsof self-review and faculty involvementto determine the appropriate credit toassign to academic activities. Some ofthese commenters also believed thatinstitutional processes are solelycapable of considering the uniquequalities of each class, program,professor, and institution. Twocommenters believed that any problemswith credit assignment can be addressedthrough existing institutional reviewprocedures.A few commenters agreed with theprovision in proposed paragraph (3) ofthe credit-hour definition allowinginstitutions to provide reasonable‘‘equivalencies’’ for the amount of workspecified in proposed paragraph (1) ofthe definition. Two of these commentersbelieved that this provision allowsinstitutions to use alternative methodsof instruction and measures of creditthat are more appropriate forinstitutions with nontraditionalstudents entering the modern workforce.These commenters suggested makingproposed paragraph (3) the firstparagraph in the credit-hour definitionin § 600.2. Another of these commentersbelieved that this provision would allowinstitutions the flexibility to use anddevelop innovative forms of coursecontent delivery.Several commenters believed that aFederal definition of a credit hourwould undermine the integrity of theAmerican higher education system