Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Program Integrity Issues rule (2011)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Program Integrity Issues rule is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Department of Education effective July 1, 2011, that amended department regulations concerning program integrity under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA). The rule amended 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 Program, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program, the Federal Pell Grant Program, and the Academic Competitiveness Grant and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant Programs.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Program Integrity Issues
  • Code of Federal Regulations: 34 CFR Parts 600, 602, 603, 668, 682, 685, 686, 690, and 691
  • Agency: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education
  • Type of significant rule: Economically significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    • November 27, 2015: The Department of Education published a rule to provide clarification and additional information about the final regulations.[2]
    • June 24, 2014: The Department of Education published a rule delaying the implementation date for certain state authorization regulations until July 1, 2015.[3]
    • September 20, 2013: The Department of Education published technical amendments to the final rule in accordance with a court order.[4]
    • May 21, 2013: The Department of Education published a rule delaying the implementation date for certain state authorization regulations until July 1, 2014.[5]
    • March 22, 2013: The Department of Education published revisions to the preamble of the final rule, pursuant to the remand in Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities v. Duncan.[6]
    • July 1, 2011: The final rule took effect. Institutions that were unable to obtain state authorization were permitted to delay the effective date until July 1, 2013.[1]
    • April 13, 2011: The Department of Education published a correction to the final rule.[7]
    • October 29, 2010: The Department of Education published a final rule.[1]
    • September 9, 2010: The Department of Education closed the comment period on the second proposed rule.[8]
    • August 2, 2010: The Department of Education closed the comment period on the first proposed rule.[9]
    • July 26, 2010: The Department of Education published a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish measures for program eligibility and opened the comment period.[8]
    • June 18, 2010: The Department of Education published a notice of proposed rulemaking to improve program integrity and opened the comment period.[9]
    • September 9, 2009: The Department of Education announced the establishment of two negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare proposed regulations to implement changes made to the Higher Education Act of 1965.[10]

    Background

    Education Policy
    Education Icon 200x200.png
    Education policy topics
    • Overview of trends in K-12 curricula development
    • Impact of school choice on rural school districts
    • Local school board authority across the 50 states
    • State policies on cellphone use in K-12 public schools
    • School choice in the United States
    • School choice glossary

    Other policy areas
    Click here for coverage of other policy areas on Ballotpedia

    President Lyndon Johnson (D) signed the Higher Education Act (HEA) into law on November 8, 1965, in an effort to strengthen educational resources and financial assistance for college students by increasing federal grants to universities, creating low-interest student loans, and issuing scholarships. Title IV of the HEA established standards for offering financial assistance to college students, which governed Student Assistance General Provisions regulations.[11]

    In response to amendments made to the HEA, the Department of Education issued two proposed rules in an effort to further the stated goals of the HEA. After reviewing comments from the two proposed rules, the department issued three separate final regulations to address issues with program integrity, gainful employment, and measures for determining educational program eligibility.[1]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:

    “ The Secretary is improving integrity in the programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), by amending 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 in part 686, 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.[1][12] ”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[9]

    “
    • Requiring institutions to develop and follow procedures to evaluate the validity of a student's high school diploma if the institution or the Secretary has reason to believe that the diploma is not valid or was not obtained from an entity that provides secondary school education;
    • Expanding eligibility for title IV, HEA program assistance to students who demonstrate they have the ability to benefit by satisfactorily completing six credits of college work, or the equivalent amounts of coursework, that are applicable toward a degree or certificate offered by an institution;
    • Amending and adding definitions of terms related to ability to benefit testing, including “assessment center,” “independent test administrator,” “individual with a disability,” “test,” “test administrator,” and “test publisher”;
    • Consolidating into a single regulatory provision the approval processes for ability to benefit tests developed by test publishers and States;
    • Establishing requirements under which test publishers and States must provide descriptions of processes for identifying and handling test score abnormalities, ensuring the integrity of the testing environment, and certifying and decertifying test administrators;
    • Requiring test publishers and States to describe any accommodations available for individuals with disabilities, as well as the process a test administrator would use to identify and report to the test publisher instances in which these accommodations were used;
    • Revising the test approval procedures and criteria for ability to benefit tests, including procedures related to the approval of tests for speakers of foreign languages and individuals with disabilities;
    • Revising the definitions and provisions that describe the activities that constitute substantial misrepresentation by an institution of the nature of its educational program, its financial charges, or the employability of its graduates;
    • Removing the “safe harbor” provisions related to incentive compensation for any person or entity engaged in any student recruitment or admission activity, including making decisions regarding the award of title IV, HEA program assistance;
    • Clarifying what is required for an institution of higher education, a proprietary institution of higher education, and a postsecondary vocational institution to be considered legally authorized by the State;
    • Defining a credit hour and establishing procedures that certain institutional accrediting agencies must have in place to determine whether an institution's assignment of a credit hour is acceptable;
    • Modifying provisions to clarify whether and when an institution must award student financial assistance based on clock or credit hours and the standards for credit-to-clock-hour conversions;
    • Modifying the provisions related to written arrangements between two or more eligible institutions that are owned or controlled by the same person or entity so that the percentage of the educational program that may be provided by the institution that does not grant the degree or certificate under the arrangement may not exceed 50 percent;
    • Prohibiting written arrangements between an eligible institution and an ineligible institution that has had its certification to participate in title IV, HEA programs revoked or its application for recertification denied;
    • Expanding provisions related to the information that an institution with a written arrangement must disclose to a student enrolled in a program affected by the arrangement, including, for example, the portion of the educational program that the institution that grants the degree or certificate is not providing;
    • Revising the definition of unsubsidized student financial aid programs to include TEACH Grants, Federal PLUS Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans;
    • Codifying current policy that an institution must complete verification before the institution may exercise its professional judgment authority;
    • Eliminating the 30 percent verification cap;
    • Retaining the ability of institutions to select additional applicants for verification;
    • Replacing the five verification items for all selected applicants with a targeted selection from items included in an annual Federal Register notice published by the Secretary;
    • Allowing interim disbursements when changes to an applicant's FAFSA information would not change the amount that the student would receive under a title IV, HEA program;
    • Codifying the Department's IRS Data Retrieval System Process, which allows an applicant to import income and other data from the IRS into an online FAFSA;
    • Requiring the processing of changes and corrections to an applicant's FAFSA information;
    • Modifying the provisions related to institutional satisfactory academic progress policies and the impact these policies have on a student's eligibility for title IV, HEA program assistance;
    • Expanding the definition of full-time student to allow, for a term-based program, repeated coursework taken in the program to count towards a full-time workload;
    • Clarifying when a student is considered to have withdrawn from a payment period or period of enrollment for the purpose of calculating a return of title IV, HEA program funds;
    • Clarifying the circumstances under which an institution is required to take attendance for the purpose of calculating a return of title IV, HEA program funds;
    • Modifying the provisions for disbursing title IV, HEA program funds to ensure that certain students can obtain or purchase books and supplies by the seventh day of a payment period;
    • Updating the definition of the term recognized occupation to reflect current usage;
    • Establishing requirements for institutions to submit information on students who attend or complete programs that prepare students for gainful employment in recognized occupations; and
    • Establishing requirements for institutions to disclose on their Web site and in promotional materials to prospective students, the on-time completion rate, placement rate, median loan debt, program cost, and other information for programs that prepare students for gainful employment in recognized occupations.[12]
    		 ”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) deemed this rule economically significant pursuant to Executive Order 12866. An agency rule can be deemed a significant rule if it has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. The term was defined by E.O. 12866, which was issued in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.[1]

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Federal Register, "Program Integrity Issues," October 29, 2010
    2. ↑ Federal Register, "Program Integrity Issues," November 27, 2015
    3. ↑ Federal Register, "Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended; Delay of Implementation Date," June 24, 2014
    4. ↑ Federal Register, "Program Integrity Issues," September 20, 2013
    5. ↑ Federal Register, "Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended; Delay of Implementation Date," May 21, 2013
    6. ↑ Federal Register, "Program Integrity Issues," March 22, 2013
    7. ↑ Federal Register, "Program Integrity Issues," April 13, 2011
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Federal Register, "Program Integrity: Gainful Employment," July 26, 2010
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Federal Register, "Program Integrity Issues," June 18, 2010
    10. ↑ Federal Register, "Office of Postsecondary Education; Notice of Negotiated Rulemaking for Programs Authorized Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended," September 9, 2009
    11. ↑ Federal Student Aid, "Gainful Employment Information," accessed June 1, 2023
    12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Program_Integrity_Issues_rule_(2011)&oldid=9170489"