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

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations66885WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES2statuses proposed in § 668.34, butrequested that the Department add tothe SAP regulations a defined term fora student who has lost eligibility for titleIV, HEA aid as a result of aninstitution’s evaluation under the SAPregulations. Several other commentersquestioned what status would beassigned to a student who wasreinstated on an academic plan and wasmaking progress under that plan. Thesecommenters wondered whether theseindividuals would still be considered tobe on financial aid probation status, orif the Department planned to defineanother term to refer to them.Discussion: A student who is notmeeting SAP is simply not eligible toreceive title IV, HEA aid, as he or shedoes not meet one of the basic studenteligibility criteria. For this reason, wedo not believe it is necessary to defineanother term to describe this individual,just as we do not have specific terms todescribe students who may not bemeeting other basic student eligibilitycriteria.A student who has been reinstated toeligibility under an academic plan andis making progress under that plan isconsidered to be an eligible student. Thestudent is not considered to be onfinancial aid warning status or financialprobation status, provided he or she isotherwise making satisfactory progress.Changes: None.Comment: A few commenters arguedthat proposed § 668.34(c) could beinterpreted to allow an institution toplace a student on financial aid warningstatus for more than one paymentperiod, and that, under thisinterpretation, the student would beable to get title IV, HEA aid for multiplepayment periods when the student is onfinancial aid warning status as long asthe student was within range of movinginto compliance with the institution’sSAP standards. These commentersstated that the language in § 668.34(c)does not need to be interpreted sonarrowly so as to limit the number ofpayment periods during which astudent could be placed on financial aidstatus to one payment period.Other commenters suggested thatstudents could develop and follow anacademic plan during the period of theirfinancial aid warning and that thisapproach would allow for students to beput on financial aid warning status formultiple periods. These commenters allopined that there was a range ofdeficiencies within any category ofstudent failure, and that students mayrequire differing amounts ofintervention to get back on track to meetthe institution’s SAP standards. Thecommenters stated that institutionsshould be able to define different bandsof need for assigning financial aidwarning statuses. Several othercommenters requested that theDepartment clarify that students may beplaced on financial aid warning orfinancial aid status for multiplepayment periods throughout theiracademic careers.Other commenters asked theDepartment to clarify whether therequirements around financial aidwarning or financial aid probationarystatuses allow students to receive titleIV, HEA aid for more than one paymentperiod. One commenter indicated thatlack of financial aid during a period inwhich the student is on financial aidprobationary status would causeproblems for students. The commenterstated that this would cause barriers forthe most needy and at-risk students.Discussion: The financial aid warningstatus and the financial aid probationarystatus are both defined in § 668.34(b). Astudent who has not made satisfactoryacademic progress and is placed underone of these statuses may continue toreceive title, IV HEA aid for onepayment period only, under veryspecific circumstances. We do notintend for the language in § 668.34(b) tobe interpreted in any other fashion. Torespond to the commenter who believedthat lack of financial support during thisperiod would disadvantage students, itis important to note that both of thesestatuses provide for one payment periodof title IV, HEA funds. It is possible forinstitutions that are able to use thefinancial aid warning status to do anysort of intervention with a student thatthey deem appropriate during theperiod of time the student is in thatstatus, including help them to preparean appeal or refer them to other studentsupport services. We do not believe thatit is appropriate, however, to continueplacing students on a financial aidwarning status for more than onepayment period because these arestudents who are not making progresstoward program completion. We do notbelieve it is appropriate to put thestudent on an academic plan and simplycontinue such a plan without anappropriate appeal. This is because webelieve that a student should berequired to file an appeal and explainthe reason that he or she has not beenable to meet the SAP standards, andwhat in his or her situation haschanged. It is important for the studentto have ownership in his or her currentsituation and the resulting academicplan, with an understanding of theconsequences the student faces if he orshe fails to follow the academic plan.We do agree with the commenters whoVerDate Mar2010 14:10 Oct 28, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29OCR2.SGM 29OCR2suggest that it is possible for a studentto be subject to more than one period offinancial aid warning, or to submit morethan one appeal throughout anacademic career, if the institution’s SAPpolicy allows it.Changes: None.Comment: Numerous commentersobjected to the requirement in theproposed regulations for institutions tocheck SAP on a payment period-bypaymentperiod basis. They argued thatit is unreasonable for the Department toimpose such a requirement oninstitutions that do not have any historyof abuse in this area and that otherwisehave good SAP policies. Thesecommenters noted that it would beoverly burdensome to requireinstitutions to change their SAPprocedures to require SAP evaluationsevery payment period.Discussion: Section 668.34(a)(3) isconsistent with current§ 668.16(e)(2)(ii)(B), which requiresinstitutions to check academic progressfor programs that are longer than anacademic year at least annually. Whileinstitutions can check academicprogress for these programs morefrequently, they are not required to doso. Under these regulations, institutionsare only required to evaluate satisfactoryacademic progress more frequently ifthe program is shorter than an academicyear.Changes: None.Comment: A couple of commentersasked the Department to confirm thatthe financial aid warning and financialaid probation status would be applied tothe student’s next payment period(following the institution’sdetermination that the student is notmaintaining SAP) and not simply to thenext payment period at the institution.These commenters argued that it wasimportant to apply the status to thestudent during the next term that thestudent was actually in attendance.One commenter believed that aprogram of an academic year in lengthor shorter should not be allowed to usethe financial aid warning status becausea student in such a program wouldnever be denied title IV, HEA funds fornot making SAP.Discussion: Under these regulations,an institution would apply the financialaid warning or financial aid probationstatus to a student during the student’snext period of attendance. It is notreasonable to assume that the studentwould be considered to be on financialaid warning, for example, if he or shewere not in attendance. For shorterprograms (i.e., those that are anacademic year or less), the definition ofa payment period does not allow