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

66866 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and RegulationsWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES2the State Attorney General as well asother appropriate State officials. A Statemay choose to have a single agency orofficial handle complaints regardinginstitutions or may use a combination ofagencies and State officials. All relevantofficials or agencies must be included inan institution’s institutional informationunder § 668.43(b). Directly relying on aninstitution’s accrediting agency wouldnot comply with § 600.9(a)(1) of thesefinal regulations; however, to the extenta complaint relates to an institution’squality of education or other issueappropriate to consideration by aninstitution’s accrediting agency, a Statemay refer a complaint to theinstitution’s accrediting agency forresolution. We do not believe it isnecessary to prescribe memoranda ofunderstanding or similar mechanisms ifa State chooses to rely on aninstitution’s accrediting agency as theState remains responsible for theappropriate resolution of a complaint.Section 600.9(a)(1) requires aninstitution to be authorized by a State,thus providing an additional check oninstitutional integrity; however, we donot believe there are inadequate checkson State officials and agencies as theyare subject to audit, review, and Statelegislative action.We do not agree with the commentersthat proposed § 600.9(b)(3) wouldunnecessarily use State resources, beimpractical, or be chaotic to administer.There are complaints that only a Statecan appropriately handle, includingenforcing any applicable State law orregulations. We do not agree that publicinstitutions should be exempt from thisrequirement as a complainant must havea process, independent of anyinstitution—public or private, to havehis or her complaint considered by theState. The State is not permitted to relyon institutional complaint andsanctioning processes in resolvingcomplaints it receives as these do notprovide the necessary independentprocess for reviewing a complaint. AState may, however, monitor aninstitution’s complaint resolutionprocess to determine whether it isaddressing the concerns that are raisedwithin it.We do not agree with the suggestionsthat the Department’s Student LoanOmbudsman is an appropriatealternative to a State complaintsprocess. The Ombudsman is charged,under the HEA, with the informalresolution only of complaints byborrowers under the title IV, HEA loanprograms. By comparison, a State’scomplaint resolution process wouldcover the breadth of issues that ariseunder its laws or regulations.Changes: We have amended proposed§ 668.43(b) to provide that an institutionmust make available to a student orprospective student contact informationfor filing complaints with its accreditorand with its State approval or licensingentity and any other relevant Stateofficial or agency that wouldappropriately handle a student’scomplaint.Comment: One commenter believedthat proposed § 668.43(b) under whichan institution must provide to studentsand prospective students the contactinformation for filing complaints withthe institution’s State approval orlicensing entity should make allowancefor situations in which a State has noprocess for complaints, or defers to theaccrediting agency to receive andresolve complaints. Another commenterbelieved that, in the case of distanceeducation, the institution should beresponsible for responding tocomplaints. Instead of providingstudents and prospective students,under proposed § 668.43(b), the contactinformation for filing complaints withthe institution’s accrediting agency andState approval or licensing entity, thecommenter recommended that theinstitution provide students with theinstitution’s name, location, and Website to file complaints.Discussion: We do not agree thatproposed § 668.43(b) needs to makeallowance for an institution in a Statewithout a process for complaints, sinceevery State is charged with enforcing itsown laws and no institution is exemptfrom complying with State laws. If nocomplaint process existed, theinstitution would not be considered tobe legally authorized. With respect to aninstitution offering distance educationprograms, the institution must provide,under § 668.43(b), not only the contactinformation for the State or States inwhich it is physically located, but alsothe contact information for States inwhich it provides distance education tothe extent that the State has anylicensure or approval processes for aninstitution outside the State providingdistance education in the State.Changes: None.Reciprocity and Distance EducationComment: In general, commentersexpressed concerns regarding legalauthorization by a State incircumstances where an institution isphysically located across State lines aswell as when an institution is operatingin another State from its physicallocation through distance education oronline learning. One commenter urgedthe Department to include clarifyinglanguage regarding a State’s ability toVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2rely on other States’ authorization in thefinal regulation rather than in thepreamble. Several commentersrequested that the Department limit theState authorization requirement in§ 600.9 to the State in which theinstitution is physically located. Onecommenter believed that a State shouldonly be allowed to rely on anotherState’s determination if the school hasno physical presence in the State andthe other State’s laws, authority, andoversight are at least as protective ofstudents and taxpayers. One commenterasked whether the phrase ‘‘the State inwhich the institution operates’’ is thesame as ‘‘where the institution isdomiciled’’. The commenter asked forclarification of the meaning of ‘‘operate’’including whether it means whereonline students are located, wherestudent recruiting occurs, where aninstructor is located, or wherefundraising activity is undertaken. Onecommenter requested that theDepartment clarify and affirm thatreciprocity agreements that existbetween States with respect to publicinstitutions operating campuses orprograms in multiple States are notimpacted by these regulations. Anothercommenter believed that theDepartment should issue regulationsrather than merely provide in thepreamble of the NPRM that a State isallowed to enter into an agreement withanother State. One commenter askedwhether an institution that operates inmore than one State can rely on anauthorization from a State that does notmeet the authorization requirements.One commenter urged the Departmentto clarify that States may rely on theauthorization by other States,particularly as it relates to distanceeducation. One commenter stated thatthe proposed regulations would behighly problematic for students whotransfer between different States.Another commenter feared that largeproprietary schools that are regional ornational in scope would likely lobbyStates to turn over their oversight toanother State where laws, regulations,and oversight are more lax. Anothercommenter was concerned that forprofitinstitutions may lobby a State torelinquish its responsibilities to a Stateof those institutions’ choosing. Thissituation could result in a State withlittle regulation that is home to a largefor-profit institution actually controllingpolicies in many States where thecorporation does business. Onecommenter suggested that if aninstitution is not physically located in aState, the State could enter into anagreement with other States where the