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

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations66869WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES2status, but the three classes passed inthe fall would not be included indetermining the student’s enrollmentstatus for the spring semester forpurposes of the title IV, HEA programs.We believe these revisions are necessaryto limit potential abuse from coursesbeing retaken multiple times, whileproviding institutions sufficientflexibility to meet the needs of moststudents.We would also note that aninstitution’s satisfactory academicprogress policy could further limit astudent from retaking coursework,because the credits associated with anycourse the student retakes count towardthe maximum time-frame requirement.The regulations do not affect the oneyearacademic limitation on noncreditand reduced-credit remedial courseworkunder § 668.20(d) and (f). For example,if a student repeats a remedial coursethat exceeds the one-year limitation, thecourse could not be considered in thestudent’s enrollment status.Changes: We have revised thedefinition of full-time student in§ 668.2(b) to provide that a student’senrollment status for a term-basedprogram may include repeating anycoursework previously taken in theprogram but may not include more thanone repetition of a previously passedcourse, or any repetition of a previouslypassed course due to the student’sfailing other coursework.Comment: One commenterrecommended that the change in thedefinition of full-time student should beexpanded to include nonstandard-termand nonterm programs.Discussion: Since the change in thedefinition applies to all term-basedprograms, the change would apply tostandard terms, including semesters,trimesters, and quarters, as well asnonstandard terms. Under the definitionof a nonterm payment period in§ 668.4(c), a student’s coursework isdivided into payment periods based onthe hours and weeks of instructionaltime in the program. In general, underthese nonterm provisions a studentmust successfully complete the credit orclock hours in a payment period toadvance to the next payment period,and may not be paid for repeatingcoursework regardless of whether thestudent successfully completed it unlessthe provisions of § 668.4(g) apply.Changes: None.Written Arrangements (§§ 668.5 and668.43)GeneralComment: Several commenters agreedwith the proposed regulations relatingto written arrangements. Onecommenter commended theDepartment’s proposals on this topic,noting that they strike a fair balance inthe presence of many minutia-drivenconcerns. Some commenters stated thatthe proposed changes eliminateinconsistencies that exist in the currentregulations and provide betterinformation to students while allowinginstitutions to determine the best way todisseminate the required information.Other commenters stated that theyagreed with the proposed changes in§§ 668.5 and 668.43 because if aneligible institution enters into a writtenarrangement with another eligibleinstitution, under which the othereligible institution provides part of theeducational program to studentsenrolled in the first institution, it isimportant for all parties to have a clearunderstanding of which institution isproviding the credential and themajority of the education and training.Discussion: We appreciate thecommenters’ support of the proposedchanges reflected in §§ 668.5 and668.43.Changes: None.Written Arrangements Between Two orMore Eligible Institutions (§ 668.5(a))Comment: Some commenters objectedto the Department’s assertion—in thepreamble of the NPRM (75 FR 34806,34815)—that students who want to takemore than 50 percent of an educationalprogram at another institution couldtransfer to the institution that providesthe preponderance of the program’scoursework. One commenter stated thatstudents should be allowed to takecourses at more than one campus ofeligible institutions that have a writtenarrangement without needing to gothrough unnecessary activities related totransfer of credit.Several commenters disagreed withthe proposed changes reflected in§ 668.5(a)(2)(ii). First, they argued thatimposing a limitation on the portion ofan educational program one institutioncan provide under a writtenarrangement is not consistent with thepurpose of consortium agreements,which is to allow students to obtain adegree or certificate from theirinstitution of choice while allowingthem to satisfy course requirements bytaking courses delivered by anotherinstitution. Second, the commentersdisagreed with the limitation becausewe do not place similar restrictions oninstitutions when they accept transferstudents who have earned more thanhalf of the credits that will go towardtheir educational program at anotherinstitution. Finally, the commentersVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2argued that more students are attendingmultiple institutions before completingtheir degree or certificate programs anda requirement that the credentialgrantinginstitution must provide 50percent of the individual student’seducational program would be a barrierto the students’ postsecondary success.In addition, a few commenters notedthat current articulation agreementsallow students to further their educationat another institution that may acceptenough credits on transfer that thestudent has less than 50 percent of theprogram remaining to be completed.Some commenters expressed the viewthat the proposed regulations governingwritten arrangements should not applyto articulation agreements while otherssought clarification of whether theDepartment’s position is that they doapply to such agreements. Commentersexpressed concern that the proposalwould result in undue hardship andfewer opportunities for students insmall communities who take a portionof their coursework locally. Onecommenter asked whether the proposedchanges reflected in § 668.5 affectstudents who obtained college creditwhile still in high school.Discussion: There appears to be someconfusion about the scope of theproposed changes to § 668.5. Underproposed § 668.5(a)(1), eligibleinstitutions that are not under commonownership may enter into a writtenarrangement (which may include thetype of consortium agreementsmentioned by the commenters) underwhich the non-degree-grantinginstitution offers part of the degreegrantinginstitution’s educationalprogram; this provision does not imposea specific limitation on the portion ofthe educational program that may beoffered by the non-degree-grantinginstitution. In contrast, under proposed§ 668.5(a)(2)(ii), if a written arrangementis between two or more eligibleinstitutions that are under commonownership (i.e., are owned or controlledby the same individual, partnership orcorporation), the degree- or certificategrantinginstitution must provide morethan 50 percent of the educationalprogram. In this situation, a student isconsidered a regular student at thedegree- or certificate-granting institutionwhile taking a portion of theeducational program at anotherinstitution under common ownership.Under this regulatory framework, aconsortium agreement between twoeligible institutions that are not undercommon ownership is not subject to the50 percent limitation in § 668.5(a)(2)(ii).Moreover, § 668.5(a) does not apply toarticulation agreements under which