17598 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: March 12, 2013. 

Steven D. Vaughn, 

Director, Office of New Animal Drug 

Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06126 Filed 3–21–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0006] 

Special Local Regulation; Southern 

California Annual Marine Events for 

the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

the 2013 San Diego Crew Classic Special 

Local Regulation located in the 

regulated area encompasses that portion 

of Mission Bay, San Diego, California 

bounded by Enchanted Cove, Fiesta 

Island, Pacific Passage and DeAnza 

Point, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on April 6, 

2013 and 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on April 7, 

2013. This action is necessary to 

provide to provide for the safety of the 

participants, crew, spectators, sponsor 

vessels of the event, and general users 

of the waterway. During the 

enforcement period, no spectators shall 

anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the 

transit of participants or official patrol 

vessels in the regulated area during the 

effective dates and times, unless cleared 

for such entry by Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander or through an official 

supporting vessel. 

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 

100.1101 will be enforced from 7 a.m. 

to 7 p.m. on April 6, 2013 and 7 a.m. 

to 7 p.m. on April 7, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, call 

or email Petty Officer Bryan Gollogly, 

Waterways Management, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 

619–278–7656, email D11-PFMarineEventsSanDiego@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the Special Local 

Regulation for the 2013 San Diego Crew 

Classic in 33 CFR 100.1101 from 7 a.m. 

to 7 p.m. on April 6, 2013 and from 7 

a.m. to 7 p.m. on April 7, 2013. 

Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, 

a vessel may not enter the regulated 

area, unless it receives permission from 

the COTP. Spectator vessels may safely 

transit outside the regulated area but 

may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede 

the transit of participants or official 

patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be 

assisted by other Federal, State, or Local 

law enforcement agencies in enforcing 

this regulation. 

This notice is issued under authority 

of 33 CFR 100.1101 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). 

In addition to this notice in the Federal 

Register, the Coast Guard will provide 

the maritime community with extensive 

advance notification of this enforcement 

period via the Local Notice to Mariners. 

If the Captain of the Port or his 

designated representative determines 

that the regulated area need not be 

enforced for the full duration stated on 

this notice, he or she may use a 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant 

general permission to enter the 

regulated area. 

Dated: March 6, 2013. 

S.M. Mahoney, 

Captain, US Coast Guard, Captain of the Port 

San Diego. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06587 Filed 3–21–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Parts 600, 602, 603, 668, 682, 

685, 686, 690, and 691 

[Docket ID ED–2010–OPE–0004] 

RIN 1840–AD02 

Program Integrity Issues 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final regulations; revisions to 

preamble. 

SUMMARY: On October 29, 2010, the 

Department of Education published in 

the Federal Register final regulations for 

improving integrity in the programs 

authorized under title IV of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(HEA) (October 29, 2010, final 

regulations). This document revises the 

preamble discussion to the October 29, 

2010, final regulations in accordance 

with the remand in Association of 

Private Sector Colleges and Universities 

v. Duncan (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

DATES: These revisions apply to the 

preamble for the October 29, 2010, 

regulations (75 FR 66832), which were 

generally effective July 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marty Guthrie, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 

8042, Washington, DC 20006. 

Telephone: (202) 219–7031 or by email 

at Marty.Guthrie@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities can 

obtain this document in an accessible 

format (e.g., braille, large print, 

audiotape, or compact disc) by 

contacting the contact person listed in 

this section. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

October 29, 2010, final regulations (75 

FR 66832) amended 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, 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. This document 

revises the preamble discussion to the 

October 29, 2010, final regulations in 

accordance with the remand in 

Association of Private Sector Colleges 

and Universities v. Duncan, 681 F.3d 

427 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

We note that the Court in APSCU v. 

Duncan, also remanded certain 

provisions of the Department’s 

misrepresentation regulations for 

revision consistent with the Court’s 

opinion. We will be publishing a 

separate notice in the Federal Register 

addressing this issue. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

The official version of this document 

is the document published in the 

Federal Register. Free Internet access to 

the official edition of the Federal 

Register and the Code of Federal 

Regulations is available via the Federal 

Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. 

At this site you can view this 

document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 17599 

Revisions to the Preamble of the Final 

Rule 

Current Safe Harbors 

We are revising our response to the 

third comment under the Current Safe 

Harbors heading. Our discussion and 

response to this comment that begins in 

the first column on page 66874 is 

revised as follows: 

‘‘Discussion: The Department believes 

that an institution’s resolute and 

ongoing goal should be for its students 

to complete their educational programs. 

Employees should not be rewarded 

beyond their standard salary or wages 

for their contributions to this 

fundamental duty. 

The safe harbor in 

§ 668.14(b)(22)(ii)(E), as promulgated on 

November 1, 2002 (67 FR 67048), 

permits compensation based upon 

students successfully completing their 

educational programs or one academic 

year of their educational programs, 

whichever is shorter. However, as we 

discussed in the NPRM, it is the 

Department’s experience that 

institutions use this safe harbor to 

provide recruiters with compensation 

that is ‘‘indirectly’’ based upon securing 

enrollments in violation of the HEA. 20 

U.S.C. 1094(a)(20) (‘‘The institution will 

not provide any commission, bonus, or 

other incentive payment based directly 

or indirectly on success in securing 

enrollments or financial aid to any 

persons or entities engaged in any 

student recruiting or admission 

activities or in making decisions 

regarding the award of student financial 

assistance. * * *’’) In other words, 

because a student cannot successfully 

complete an educational program 

without first enrolling in the program, 

the compensation for securing program 

completion requires the student’s 

enrollment as a necessary preliminary 

step. 

This is particularly the case with 

short-term, accelerated programs, where 

the Department was advised in 

comments received during and 

following the November 2009 

Negotiated Rulemaking Meeting that 

there is the potential for increased 

efforts by institutions to rely upon this 

safe harbor to provide incentives to 

recruiters. Concern over recruiters 

guiding students to short-term programs 

was not as prominent when the safe 

harbor was adopted in 2002 because the 

number of such programs was not as 

widespread then, having grown 

dramatically in more recent years. The 

shorter the program, the more likely the 

student will complete the program, thus 

rewarding enrollment and completion 

notwithstanding the student’s academic 

performance or the quality of the 

program. We are also concerned that, if 

this safe harbor is not removed, 

recruiters will steer students to the 

shortest possible programs regardless of 

whether the programs are appropriate 

for the students, or to an even smaller 

number of program options where the 

recruiter believes completion is most 

likely to be obtained. As the primary 

function of admissions representatives 

is to serve as counselors, their primary 

goal should be to make sure that the 

student is a good fit for the institution 

and the program, to make sure that the 

institution and program are a good fit 

for the student, and not to enroll the 

student if this is not the case. A decision 

by a recruiter not to enroll a student 

should be considered every bit as 

valuable to the institution as a decision 

to enroll the student, if, in fact, the 

student and the institution or the 

program are not a good match. 

As discussed in the NPRM, the 

Department also is aware of schools that 

have devised and operated grading 

policies that all but ensure that students 

who enroll will graduate, regardless of 

their academic performance. Thus, as 

explained in comments received during 

and following the November 2009 

Negotiated Rulemaking Meeting, the 

Department believes that retaining this 

safe harbor could contribute to lowered 

admissions standards, misrepresented 

program offerings, lowered academic 

progress standards, altered attendance 

records, and a lack of meaningful 

emphasis on academic performance and 

program quality. We also note that 

recruiters are aware that many of the 

schools that would be most affected by 

the removal of the safe harbor have poor 

completion rates—approximately 10 to 

25 percent. 

As a result, if the safe harbor were 

retained, in order for recruiters to secure 

incentive compensation, they would 

likely need to enroll even more marginal 

students, and make even greater 

unfounded claims about a program, to 

increase the potential that some will 

actually complete their programs of 

instruction. And, of course, there is the 

further potential for unscrupulous 

actors to manipulate the process to 

obtain student completions, through 

grade or attendance manipulation. 

Accordingly, this safe harbor 

ultimately does not benefit students, 

and because institutions have sufficient 

reasons to value student retention and 

completion without providing 

incentives to recruiters, we believe it is 

appropriate to remove the safe harbor. 

We disagree with the commenter who 

stated that removal of this safe harbor is 

inconsistent with the Administration’s 

goal of increasing student retention in 

postsecondary education. Institutions 

should not need this safe harbor to 

demonstrate their commitment to 

retaining students within their program 

of instruction. 

We disagree with the commenters 

who indicated that incentive payments 

under this safe harbor have a positive 

effect on a student’s educational 

experience. There is nothing about the 

making of incentive payments to 

recruiters based upon student retention 

that enhances the quality of a student’s 

educational experience or makes it more 

likely a student will complete a 

program. If the program of instruction 

has value and is appropriate for a 

student’s needs, a student will likely 

enjoy a positive educational experience 

regardless of the manner in which the 

student’s recruiter is compensated, 

whereas retention bonuses can cause 

recruiters to pressure students to remain 

enrolled even when a student is 

dissatisfied with a program or is eligible 

for a refund of charges paid. Rather than 

providing a benefit by bolstering the 

quality of students that are enrolled, 

retention of the safe harbor is likely to 

perpetuate abuses by fostering 

enrollment and retention in programs 

that do not best reflect a student’s needs 

or desires, but are designed to secure 

completion of the programs at all costs. 

Finally, the removal of this safe 

harbor would not permit payments 

based on a student’s employment in the 

field of study after graduation. Here 

again, the potential for manipulation 

and abuse is significant. The 

Department’s experience has shown that 

some institutions pay incentive 

compensation to recruiters based upon 

claims that the students whom the 

recruiter enrolled graduated and 

received jobs in their fields of study. 

Yet, included among the abuses the 

Department has witnessed, for example, 

is a circumstance where the institution 

counted a student who studied culinary 

arts and was working in an entry-level 

position in the fast food industry as 

being employed in his field of study. 

Such a position did not require the 

student to purchase a higher education 

‘credential.’ As a result, we believe that 

paying bonuses to recruiters based upon 

retention, completion, graduation, or 

placement should be considered to 

violate the HEA’s prohibition on the 

payment of incentive compensation.’’ 

We are also amending our response to 

the fourth comment under the Current 

Safe Harbors heading. Our discussion 

and response to this comment found in 

the third column on page 66874 is 

amended by adding the following after 

the second paragraph of our discussion: 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
17600 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 56 / Friday, March 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘In further response to commenters’ 

questions about whether an institution 

could provide incentive compensation 

to employees in college diversity offices 

who recruit minority students, we note 

that the HEA prohibits all direct or 

indirect payments of incentive 

compensation to personnel or staff 

engaged in student recruitment and 

does not distinguish between incentives 

for personnel or staff recruitment 

actions that could have certain effects, 

e.g., recruitment of a well-qualified or 

diverse student body. The prohibition 

thus includes a prohibition on paying 

incentive compensation for efforts to 

promote diversity at an institution. The 

Department’s objective in removing all 

of the safe harbors is to separate the 

meritorious performance of all 

employees from an enrollment-based 

compensation system, consistent with 

the statute’s language, regardless of 

what the purpose of the enrollment 

might be. 

We also wish to reiterate that the 

incentive compensation prohibition is 

designed to protect all students from 

receiving undue pressure to enroll or to 

graduate. The statute and the 

implementing regulations ban all 

compensation to persons and entities 

that directly or indirectly provide an 

incentive to encourage enrollment. The 

incentive compensation ban is designed, 

among other things, to keep students of 

all races and backgrounds from being 

urged or cajoled into enrolling in a 

program that will not best meet their 

needs. Minority and low income 

students are often the targeted audience 

of recruitment abuses, and our 

regulatory changes are intended to end 

that abuse. It is our expectation and 

objective that enrollment of students, 

including minority students, against 

their best educational interests would be 

reduced with the elimination of 

improper incentive compensation. 

In point of fact, there never was a safe 

harbor addressing minority recruitment; 

neither the prior regulations nor these 

regulations provided a change in this 

area. Institutions are encouraged to 

continue to enroll all students in 

programs of instruction that are 

designed to promote their academic 

achievement and occupational success. 

We believe our regulations encourage 

and support this outcome.’’ 

List of Subjects 

34 CFR Part 600 

Colleges and universities, Foreign 

relations, Grant programs—education, 

Loan programs—education, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Student aid, Vocational education. 

34 CFR Part 602 

Colleges and universities, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

34 CFR Part 603 

Colleges and universities, Vocational 

education. 

34 CFR Part 668 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens, Colleges and 

universities, Consumer protection, 

Grant programs—education, Loan 

programs—education, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Selective 

Service System, Student aid, Vocational 

education. 

34 CFR Part 682 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Colleges and universities, 

Loan programs—education, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Student aid, Vocational education. 

34 CFR Part 685 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Colleges and universities, 

Loan programs—education, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Student aid, Vocational education. 

34 CFR Part 686 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Colleges and universities, 

Education, Elementary and secondary 

education, Grant programs—education, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Student aid. 

34 CFR Part 690 

Colleges and universities, Education 

of disadvantaged, Grant programs— 

education, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Student aid. 

34 CFR Part 691 

Colleges and universities, Elementary 

and secondary education, Grant 

programs—education, Student aid. 

Dated: March 18, 2013. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06656 Filed 3–21–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–1026; FRL–9380–6] 

Banda de Lupinus albus doce (BLAD); 

Exemption From the Requirement of a 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of banda de 

Lupinus albus doce (BLAD), a naturally 

occurring polypeptide from the 

catabolism of a seed storage protein (bconglutin) of sweet lupines (Lupinus 

albus), in or on all food commodities 

when applied as a fungicide and used 

in accordance with label directions and 

good agricultural practices. On behalf of 

Consumo Em Verde S.A., Bert Volger of 

Ceres International LLC submitted a 

petition to EPA under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 

requesting an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of BLAD under the FFDCA. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

March 22, 2013. Objections and requests 

for hearings must be received on or 

before May 21, 2013, and must be filed 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–1026, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Menyon Adams, Biopesticides and 

Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 347–8496; email address: 

adams.menyon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES