Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 66665 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

13, 2010. 

John Piccola, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26659 Filed 10–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation, and Enforcement 

30 CFR Parts 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 

207, 208, 210, 212, 217, 218, 219, 220, 

227, 228, 229, 241, 243, and 290 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue 

30 CFR Parts 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 

1206, 1207, 1208, 1210, 1212, 1217, 

1218, 1219, 1220, 1227, 1228, 1229, 

1241, 1243, and 1290 

[Docket No. MMS–2010–MRM–0033] 

RIN 1010–AD70 

Reorganization of Title 30, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

In rule document 2010–24721 

beginning on page 61051 in the issue of 

Monday, October 4, 2010, make the 

following corrections: 

PART 1206—PRODUCT VALUATION 

[CORRECTED] 

1. On page 61070, in the table, in the 

first column, in the fourth row, 

‘‘§ 1206.52(c)(2)’’ should read 

‘‘§ 1206.52(c)(2)(i)’’. 

2. On the same page, in the same 

table, in the same column, in the 

eleventh row, ‘‘§ 1206.53(e)(5) two 

times’’ should read ‘‘1206.52(e)(5) two 

times’’. 

3. On the same page, in the same 

table, in the same column, in both the 

fifteenth and sixteenth rows, 

‘‘§ 1206.52(c) introductory text’’ should 

read ‘‘§ 1206.53(c) introductory text’’. 

4. On page 61071, in the table, in the 

third column, in the eighteenth row 

from the bottom of the page, ‘‘part 207’’ 

should read ‘‘part 1207.’’ 

5. On the same page, in the same 

table, in the same column, in the 

seventh row from the bottom of the 

page, the blank entry should read 

‘‘ONRR.’’ 

6. On page 61072, in the table, in the 

third column, in the 22nd row, the 

blank entry should read ‘‘§ 1206.111’’. 

7. On page 61073, in the table, in the 

third column, in the 16th row, 

‘‘Associate Director’’ should read 

‘‘Director’’. 

PART 1208—SALE OF FEDERAL 

ROYALTY OIL [CORRECTED] 

8. On page 61081, in the table, in the 

third column, in the first row, 

‘‘§ 208.8(a)’’ should read ‘‘§ 1208.8(a)’’. 

9. On the same page, in the same 

table, in the same column, in the fifth 

row, ‘‘§ 208.7(g)’’ should read 

‘‘§ 1208.7(g)’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2010–24721 Filed 10–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–W–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Part 600 

RIN 1840–AD04 

[Docket ID ED–2010–OPE–0012] 

Program Integrity: Gainful 

Employment—New Programs 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the 

regulations for Institutional Eligibility 

Under the Higher Education Act of 

1965, as amended (HEA), to establish a 

process under which an institution 

applies for approval to offer an 

educational program that leads to 

gainful employment in a recognized 

occupation. 

DATES: These regulations are effective 

July 1, 2011. However, affected parties 

do not have to comply with the 

information collection requirements in 

§ 600.20(d) until the Department of 

Education publishes in the Federal 

Register the control number assigned by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to these information collection 

requirements. Publication of the control 

number notifies the public that OMB 

has approved these information 

collection requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Kolotos or Fred Sellers. Telephone: 

(202) 502–7762 or (202) 502–7502, or 

via the Internet at: John.Kolotos@ed.gov 

or Fred.Sellers@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 computer diskette) on 

request to one of the contact persons 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

26, 2010, the Secretary published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

for gainful employment issues in the 

Federal Register (75 FR 43616). 

In the preamble to the NPRM, the 

Secretary discussed on pages 43617 

through 43624 the major regulations 

proposed in that document to establish 

measures for determining whether 

certain programs lead to gainful 

employment in recognized occupations 

and the conditions under which those 

programs remain eligible for title IV, 

HEA program funds. In these final 

regulations, we address in a limited way 

only one issue from the proposed 

regulations: The provisions relating to 

the Secretary’s approval of additional 

programs. The remaining issues will be 

addressed in final regulations that we 

intend to publish in the next few 

months. 

Implementation Date of These 

Regulations 

Section 482(c) of the HEA requires 

that regulations affecting programs 

under title IV of the HEA be published 

in final form by November 1 prior to the 

start of the award year (July 1) to which 

they apply. However, that section also 

permits the Secretary to designate any 

regulation as one that an entity subject 

to the regulation may choose to 

implement earlier and to specify the 

conditions under which the entity may 

implement the provisions early. 

The Secretary has not designated any 

of the provisions in these final 

regulations for early implementation. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

These final regulations were 

developed through the use of negotiated 

rulemaking. Section 492 of the HEA 

requires that, before publishing any 

proposed regulations to implement 

programs under title IV of the HEA, the 

Secretary must obtain public 

involvement in the development of the 

proposed regulations. After obtaining 

advice and recommendations, the 

Secretary must conduct a negotiated 

rulemaking process to develop the 

proposed regulations. The negotiated 

rulemaking committee did not reach 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

66666 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

consensus on the proposed regulations 

that were published on July 26, 2010. 

The Secretary invited comments on the 

proposed regulations by September 9, 

2010. 

Over 90,000 parties submitted 

comments, many of which were 

substantially similar. Of those 

comments several hundred pertained to 

the regulations in proposed § 668.7(g) 

regarding institutions’ applications for 

and the Secretary’s approval of 

additional programs. We have reviewed 

all of the comments related to this 

specific provision. In the following 

section we address those comments in 

the context of the limited nature of the 

changes we are making in these final 

regulations. Our analysis and the 

changes we are making in these 

regulations regarding additional 

programs follow. 

Generally, we do not address minor, 

nonsubstantive changes, recommended 

changes that the law does not authorize 

the Secretary to make, or comments 

pertaining to operational processes. We 

also do not address comments 

pertaining to issues that do not relate to 

the additional programs provision or 

were not within the scope of the NPRM. 

Additional Programs (§§ 600.10 and 

600.20) 

Comments: Several commenters 

generally supported the employer 

affirmation provisions in proposed 

§ 668.7(g)(1)(iii), but made several 

recommendations. First, the 

commenters recommended that 

employers should specify the location of 

the anticipated job vacancies because 

pursuing a job across the country may 

be a reasonable choice for a graduate 

with a degree that provides training for 

a high-paying profession, but 

unreasonable for a graduate with a 

certificate or degree that provides 

training for a low-paying occupation. 

Second, the commenters stated that 

regulations should require the employer 

to identify for the employer’s business 

the number of current or expected job 

vacancies and whether those vacancies 

are for full-time, part-time, or temporary 

jobs. Third, the commenters stated that 

the Department should specify that the 

affirmations apply to time periods 

related to the length of the program. For 

example, the affirmations for a new 

eight-month program should cover the 

period after the first group of students 

completes that program. Fourth, the 

commenters asked that the regulations 

be revised to prohibit an employer from 

providing an affirmation to several 

different institutions if the employer 

does not have jobs for graduates from all 

of those institutions. Finally, to ensure 

that employer affirmations are clear and 

uniform, the commenters presented a 

model form detailing the information an 

employer would provide for these 

purposes. 

With regard to the remaining 

provisions in proposed § 668.7(g), some 

of the commenters suggested that any 

provisions limiting the establishment of 

new programs apply only to institutions 

whose programs are currently restricted 

or determined in the previous three 

years to be ineligible. The commenters 

believed this approach would provide a 

stronger incentive for institutions to 

keep their programs fully eligible and 

reduce the burden on institutions that 

have a strong record of preparing 

students for gainful employment. 

Other commenters acknowledged the 

criticism that employer affirmations and 

attestations are often pro forma, but 

supported the regulations because 

seeking affirmation of demand could 

lead to closer connections with 

employers. The commenters 

recommended that institutions include, 

as part of the affirmation process, the 

number of students hired by an 

employer who attended a program and 

the percentage of students hired by the 

employer who completed that program. 

Some commenters stated that the 

provisions in proposed § 668.7(g) place 

significant limitations on a cosmetology 

school’s ability to grow and meet the 

demands of employers, which include 

not only positions in salons and spas, 

but also in marketing, distribution, and 

sales. The commenters were particularly 

concerned about how the Department 

would use five-year enrollment 

projections and employer affirmations 

in determining whether to approve a 

program or limit its growth. The 

commenters argued that if growth 

limitations are determined based on an 

institution’s ability to document 

national and regional demand through 

employer affirmations, it would be 

unfair and unrealistic for the 

Department to rely only on affirmations 

from nonaffiliated employers. 

According to the commenters, many 

institutions work closely with salon 

owners and cosmetics manufacturers 

and distributors, and in some cases 

school owners have separate businesses 

making them affiliated employers. In 

addition, relying solely on nonaffiliated 

affirmations would eliminate one of the 

primary uses of program integrity 

boards which are designed to work in 

collaboration with institutions on the 

continued development and refinement 

of program expectations. The 

commenters believed that precluding 

affirmations from these sources is not 

only at cross-purposes with common 

business practices but also with 

guidance under other statutes, such as 

the Workforce Investment Act. The 

commenters concluded that the 

Department should withdraw or 

significantly revise the regulations to 

return the primary responsibility for 

aligning curricula with job demand back 

to accrediting agencies and States. 

A number of commenters stated that 

the regulations for additional programs 

in proposed § 668.7(g) would hamper an 

institution’s ability to develop, roll out, 

adapt, and improve new educational 

programs. For example, an institution 

that is developing a technical training 

program related to alternative fuels and 

green technologies would not be able to 

demonstrate projected job vacancies or 

expected demand, and it would be 

virtually impossible for such an 

employer to affirm that the program’s 

curriculum aligns with recognized 

occupations. In addition, the 

commenters stated that the regulations 

were too vague and lacked clarity in key 

areas. Some of the commenters asked 

the Department to clarify or explain the 

following: 

• In what ways the Department 

would consider employers qualified to 

determine educational quality or 

appropriate content of educational 

programs? The commenters contend 

that employers are not qualified to make 

these determinations. 

• What would constitute a local 

employer when education is delivered 

through an online medium? The 

commenters believe that any national 

employer should suffice. 

• What is an affiliated employer? 

Some commenters suggested that the 

institution may not have an ownership 

stake in the employer but may have a 

relationship with the employer along 

the lines of providing internships and 

externships to current and graduated 

students. Other commenters noted that 

an institution may have relationships or 

partnership arrangements with 

manufacturers, dealers, or other 

businesses and questioned whether 

these arrangements would preclude 

these businesses from providing 

affirmations. 

• How many employer affirmations 

are needed and what is the extent of the 

required documentation? 

• What criteria will be used to accept 

or reject a new program? If a program 

becomes ineligible under proposed 

§ 668.7(f) but in a subsequent year 

satisfies the gainful employment 

provisions, would the program be 

treated as a new program under 

proposed § 668.7(g)? 

• What are the metrics that would be 

used to align the size of the employers’ 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 66667 

projected needs to the size of the 

program? Would an institution be 

required to obtain affirmations from 

employers proximate to each location at 

which a program is offered? In this case, 

will program approvals be locationspecific or will an institution continue 

to be able to offer a program at its 

additional locations under the same 

Program Participation Agreement? 

• How does the Department want 

institutions to determine projected 

enrollment and how will the 

Department use enrollment projections? 

Will an institution be able to update its 

enrollment projections? 

Other commenters believed that 

enrollment projections have no bearing 

on whether a program provides gainful 

employment. Some of the commenters 

argued that rather than the Department 

attempting to control the number of 

individuals entering an occupation by 

limiting the number of students who 

enroll in a particular program, students 

should have the option of choosing a 

program so long as the program satisfies 

the standards of quality established by 

an accrediting agency. The commenters 

believed that the Department should not 

attempt to exert control over the 

educational options available to 

students in any capacity that exceeds 

ensuring program quality. In addition, 

the commenters objected to obtaining 

affirmations from nonaffiliated 

employers, particularly for online and 

graduate-level programs. With respect to 

online programs, the commenters 

contended that it would be overly 

burdensome to obtain affirmations from 

employers all over the country. With 

regard to graduate programs at 

institutions where most of the students 

enrolled in these programs are 

employed full-time, the commenters 

opined that employer affirmations are 

unnecessary because students taking 

these programs to advance their careers 

already understand the employment 

demands in their field. The commenters 

also believed that because section 496 of 

the HEA mandates that an accrediting 

agency may not be recognized by the 

Department unless the agency monitors 

the growth of programs at institutions 

that are experiencing significant 

enrollment growth, accrediting agencies 

are in a much better position than the 

Department to assess the impact of 

growth on an institution’s operations 

and whether that growth impacts 

educational quality. 

Another commenter asserted that the 

proposed additional program 

requirements violate 20 U.S.C. 1232a, 

which limits the amount of control or 

oversight that the Department may 

exercise over program curricula and 

other internal decisions made by 

schools. Moreover, the commenter 

believed that the HEA does not give the 

Department any authority to restrict a 

title IV, HEA program because the 

Department predicts it will be difficult 

for program graduates to secure 

employment. 

One commenter asserted that neither 

the Department nor employers should 

be able to control new programs. Rather, 

the commenter said that programs 

should be allowed to prove their worth 

over time. The commenter concluded 

that innovation and growth will be 

severely hindered because the proposed 

regulations prejudge the efficacy of, and 

market for, new programs. 

Many commenters opined that the 

Department should rely on data from 

the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS), instead of 

employer affirmations, to evaluate 

expected demand for an additional 

program. The commenters argued that 

one benefit of using BLS data is that an 

institution has access to the data and 

can confirm the need for new programs 

before expending substantial funds to 

develop the programs. In addition, the 

commenters stated that the Department 

would receive an endless number of 

appeals if it determined the eligibility of 

programs through ad hoc employer 

recommendations and decisions by 

Department employees who lack 

expertise in the labor markets. The 

commenters recommended that the 

Department establish a process under 

which an institution could appeal a 

decision denying the eligibility of a new 

program, where the decision maker 

would have substantial expertise in 

curriculum development and analyzing 

labor trends and occupational needs. 

A commenter stated that the proposed 

approval process for new programs was 

unfair and cumbersome and should be 

eliminated. Nevertheless, the 

commenter suggested that institutions 

offering new programs provide some 

form of expanded notice to the 

Department or the proposed process 

should be modified to apply only to an 

institution where over 50 percent of its 

programs are on a restricted status. 

Several commenters believed the 

proposed approval process for new 

programs is costly, redundant, and 

unnecessary. Some of the commenters 

stated that State and accrediting 

agencies already require approval of 

new programs and reinforced that view 

by claiming that provisions in the 

NPRM that the Department published 

on June 18, 2010 (75 FR 34806) would 

expand State oversight. The commenters 

stated that one institution alone 

implemented scores of new programs 

over the last year and questioned how 

the Department would be able to review 

efficiently the anticipated number of 

programs with the speed required for 

institutions to function effectively. The 

commenters opined that requiring 

employer affirmations does not fall 

within any reasonable understanding of 

the statutory requirements that 

programs prepare students for gainful 

employment. Moreover, because the 

proposed regulations do not adequately 

explain how the process for employer 

affirmations will be conducted, how the 

Department would review and verify the 

affirmations, or how the Department 

will determine that a program is 

acceptable, the regulations would leave 

the Department with vague, arbitrary, 

and ultimate power to approve or deny 

a program. The commenters concluded 

that the Department would be the 

arbiter of program offerings, which 

would result in a system that does not 

best serve students or the national 

economic interests. Another commenter 

believed that employer affirmations are 

not needed because job vacancies in any 

market can be obtained easily online. 

Another commenter opined that it is 

infeasible to obtain employer 

affirmations because no employer 

would affirm job openings for a specific 

number of a program’s graduates. 

According to the commenter, doing so 

could amount to a commitment to hire 

and employers would not expose 

themselves to that liability. In addition, 

an employer’s ability to foresee demand 

is limited and governed by economic 

conditions over which the employer has 

little or no control. The commenters 

concluded that requiring employer 

affirmations would effectively ban new 

programs leading to gainful 

employment. In addition, the 

commenters contended that the 

Department does not have the authority 

to impose such requirements. 

Some commenters argued that 

because postbaccalaureate degree and 

certificate programs enable an 

individual to refine his or her expertise 

or obtain a specialization associated 

with a recognized occupation, the 

programs are not necessarily intended to 

train individuals to move into the job 

market or a basic career field. Therefore, 

according to the commenters, these 

programs should be excluded from the 

regulations. Along the same lines, other 

commenters suggested excluding 

graduate programs from the regulations 

because many students in these 

programs are working adults seeking to 

advance their careers. Alternatively, one 

of the commenters suggested that the 

Department consider exempting from 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

66668 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

these regulations institutions with a 

history of low default rates. 

One commenter believed that the 

number of program approvals, estimated 

in the NPRM at 650 over the first 3 

years, is vastly underestimated. Based 

on the approvals that would be required 

at the commenter’s institution, the 

commenter estimated that 6,000 or more 

would occur over that timeframe, 

presenting an unworkable burden to the 

Department. The commenter suggested 

that the Department use a different 

mechanism to address concerns that 

institutions may attempt to circumvent 

the regulations by renaming existing 

programs or by other means. At a 

minimum, the commenter 

recommended that institutions be 

allowed to bypass Department approval 

entirely if (1) BLS data show a demand 

in the region where the new program 

will be offered, or (2) programs 

representing 50 percent or more of the 

institution’s total enrollment or 

programs representing 50 percent of its 

enrollment in the same job family, are 

not restricted or ineligible, or (3) the 

State in which the program will be 

offered requires a demand assessment. 

Some commenters requested that 

programs training alternative oral health 

workforce professionals be exempted 

from the regulations. The commenters 

explained that to address access to oral 

health care, States and national 

organizations have implemented 

programs that create new members of 

the dental team. Some of these new 

workforce models require the 

completion of a degree program while 

others require the completion of a 

certificate program. Because these are 

new programs, it would be difficult to 

project growth in coming years. In 

addition, because these new workforce 

models aim to serve a constituency that 

has historically faced barriers to oral 

health care, prospective employers may 

not be in a position to adequately gauge 

the need for these new practitioners. 

The Children’s Health Insurance 

Program Reauthorization Act, Public 

Law 111–3, requires the GAO to 

conduct a study and report on issues 

pertaining to the oral health of children, 

including ‘‘the feasibility and 

appropriateness of using qualified midlevel dental health practitioners, in 

coordination with dentists, to improve 

access for children to oral health 

services and public health overall.’’ In 

addition, the Affordable Care Act, 

Public Law 111–148, authorized an 

alternative dental health provider 

demonstration project grant program for 

States. The commenters concluded that 

it would be contradictory for the Federal 

Government to provide funding to a 

State to create a program for a new oral 

health professional, and then deny 

prospective students access to title IV, 

HEA loans to matriculate in the 

program. 

Another commenter suggested that 

the Department apply the two-year rule 

used for new institutions (a new 

institution must operate for two years 

before it applies to participate in the 

title IV, HEA programs) to institutions 

where a change in control results in 

control vested in a person or 

organization that does not have previous 

experience in administering the title IV, 

HEA programs. Under this approach, 

title IV, HEA funds would be capped at 

prechange levels for two years until the 

Department conducts a program review 

to assure that no substantial change in 

mission or educational outcomes has 

occurred as a result of the change in 

control. The commenter believed this 

approach would mitigate potential 

misalignment of the interests of a new 

owner and the educational and career 

expectations of the institution’s 

students. 

Many commenters noted that 

workforce education programs offered 

by community colleges and technical 

colleges are designed to meet local 

market needs. The commenters stated 

that as public institutions, these colleges 

undergo thorough oversight before 

adding new programs, including the use 

of business advisory committees. In 

addition, board, public agency, 

accrediting agency, and State approval 

is often required. Although the 

commenters believed that the additional 

regulations may be appropriate for some 

institutions, in their view the 

regulations are redundant and 

unnecessary for community colleges in 

light of this oversight and approval 

process. 

Several commenters suggested that, to 

avoid confusion, the provisions in 

proposed § 668.7(g) belong more 

appropriately in § 600.10(c,) which 

currently addresses the approval of 

additional programs. The commenters 

recommended retaining the exception in 

§ 600.10(c)(2), which allows an 

institution to add a program without 

obtaining approval from the Department 

if the program leads to a degree or 

prepares students for gainful 

employment in the same or related 

occupation as a program previously 

approved by the Department. The 

commenters believed that this exception 

should continue to apply so long as the 

previously approved program is not in 

a restricted status, as proposed under 

proposed § 668.7(e), or is not subject to 

debt warning disclosures under 

proposed § 668.7(d). In addition, the 

commenters believed that it would be 

impracticable for an institution to make 

the five-year enrollment projections 

under proposed § 668.7(g)(1)(ii), but did 

not offer any alternatives. 

Some commenters expressed concern 

that the approval process for additional 

programs places a high burden of proof 

on institutions and would hamper the 

ability of colleges to respond to new and 

emerging workforce needs. In addition, 

the commenters requested that the 

Department clarify how the program 

approval requirements in proposed 

§ 668.7(g) would apply to programs that 

institutions may now offer without 

approval under current § 600.10(c)(2). 

As noted previously, under that section 

an institution is not currently required 

to obtain the Department’s approval of 

an additional program if the program 

leads to a degree or prepares students 

for gainful employment in the same or 

related occupation as a program 

previously approved by the Department. 

The commenters recommended that any 

expanded approval process apply only 

in cases where there is a record of poor 

performance sufficient to justify 

additional oversight. Along the same 

lines, other commenters recommended 

that any approval process for new 

programs should apply only to 

institutions with programs in a 

restricted or ineligible status. 

Discussion: As a threshold matter, we 

disagree that the review and approval of 

an application from an institution to 

offer a new program is prohibited by 20 

U.S.C. 1232a. That provision prevents 

the Department from exercising control 

over the content of a curriculum, 

program, or personnel at an institution. 

The HEA establishes requirements for 

institutions and programs to be eligible 

to participate in the title IV, HEA 

student financial aid programs, and the 

Department is charged with the 

responsibility to ensure that institutions 

participating in these programs have the 

financial strength and administrative 

capability needed to do so. In this 

context, the Department proposed in the 

NPRM and establishes in these final 

regulations a requirement that an 

institution must notify the Department 

of its intent to offer a new program and 

if necessary obtain the Department’s 

approval to add a new program that is 

subject to the gainful employment 

regulations. Such review and approval 

do not constitute exercising control over 

the substance of the curriculum for that 

program, but rather involve a review of 

the institution and the institution’s 

decision to offer a particular program. 

Furthermore, regardless of the 

Department’s determination of a 

program’s title IV, HEA program 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 66669 

eligibility, nothing under the HEA 

would prevent any institution from 

offering an ineligible program for which 

students would receive no title IV, HEA 

program assistance. 

In general, we agree with the 

commenters who suggested that the 

program approval process for additional 

programs should apply, in some way, 

only to an institution with programs in 

a restricted or ineligible status or 

otherwise be based on the performance 

of the institution’s gainful employment 

programs. This more focused approval 

process would not only reduce burden 

on institutions and the Department, but 

would enable institutions with good 

performance records to offer new 

programs more expediently. However, 

as noted in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble, 

these final regulations do not address 

the standards that will be used to gauge 

the performance of gainful employment 

programs and the consequences of not 

meeting those standards over time. 

Therefore, in these final regulations, the 

Department is establishing in 

§ 600.20(d) requirements intended to 

remain in place until performance based 

standards can be implemented for 

approving additional programs using 

gainful employment measures along the 

lines suggested by the commenters. 

Under these requirements that go into 

effect on July 1, 2011, the Department 

does not require employer affirmations 

or enrollment projections before 

approving a program. Instead, the 

Department will rely on a notice from 

the institution, submitted at least 90 

days prior to the time when the 

institution plans to offer the new 

program, that provides a narrative 

explanation of why and how the new 

program was developed. Specifically, an 

institution must describe how it 

determined the need for the new 

program and how the program was 

designed to meet local market needs, or 

for an online program, regional or 

national market needs by, for example, 

consulting BLS data or State labor data 

systems or consulting with State 

workforce agencies. The institution also 

must describe how the program was 

reviewed or approved by, or developed 

in conjunction with, business advisory 

committees, program integrity boards, 

public or private oversight or regulatory 

agencies, and businesses that would 

likely employ graduates of the program. 

Additionally, the institution must 

include in its notice documentation that 

the program has been approved by its 

accrediting agency or is otherwise 

included in the institution’s 

accreditation by its accrediting agency, 

or comparable documentation if the 

institution is a public postsecondary 

vocational institution approved by a 

recognized State agency for the approval 

of public postsecondary vocational 

education in lieu of accreditation. The 

notice from an institution should also 

include any information that describes 

how the program would be offered in 

connection with, or in response to, an 

initiative by a governmental entity, such 

as the oral health program with the 

Federal support described in the 

comments. Additionally, an institution 

must include in its notice a description 

of any wage analysis it may have 

performed, including any consideration 

of BLS wage data that is related to the 

new program. 

Department staff will review the 

notices to identify instances where 

additional information may be needed 

about the program. Unless otherwise 

required to obtain approval for the new 

program, an institution that provides a 

notice may proceed with its plans to 

offer the new program based on its 

determination that the program is an 

eligible program that prepares students 

for gainful employment in a recognized 

occupation. If a concern or need for 

additional information about the new 

program is identified, the Department, 

under its authority in § 600.20(c)(1)(v), 

will send a letter to the institution 

alerting it that the Department must 

approve the program for title IV, HEA 

program purposes. 

If the Department denies approval of 

an institution’s new program, we will 

explain the basis for that decision and 

permit the institution to respond to our 

concerns and to request reconsideration 

of the denial. We note that even if the 

new program is not yet approved or is 

denied, an institution may still offer the 

program but students would be 

ineligible to receive title IV, HEA 

program funds to pay the costs of 

attendance associated with that 

program. In the case of a denial, the 

institution could later seek to add the 

program and provide additional 

information about students who 

completed it. 

In deciding whether to seek 

additional information regarding a 

program, the Department will assess the 

institution’s administration of its 

current programs, its capability to add 

the new program and provide the 

additional resources associated with it, 

and evaluate the institution’s 

determination that the program should 

be offered. This review includes 

examining (1) the institution’s 

demonstrated financial responsibility 

and administrative capability in 

operating existing programs, (2) whether 

the additional educational program is 

one of several new programs that would 

replace similar programs currently 

offered by the institution, as opposed to 

supplementing or expanding the current 

programs provided by the institution, 

(3) whether the number of additional 

educational programs being added is 

inconsistent with the institution’s 

historic program offerings, growth, and 

operations, and (4) the sufficiency of the 

institution’s process and determination 

to offer an additional educational 

program that leads to gainful 

employment in a recognized 

occupation. 

In evaluating the institution’s 

determination, we may consult external 

sources including the State, the 

institution’s accrediting agency, BLS, 

and State resources, and may contact 

entities identified in the institution’s 

notice. The Department may also 

require the institution to submit other 

information related to the new program. 

When determining whether to deny a 

new program, the Department will 

consider factors (2) through (4) of the 

four factors described above. The 

Department will consider any tie-in 

with a governmental entity as an 

indication that the new program is 

intended to meet either current or 

expected employment demands. The 

Department may also consider BLS 

wage data related to the new program 

when reviewing information from an 

institution. 

In general, for institutions with a 

history of good performance 

administering their programs, we 

believe that no approval will be needed 

for new programs under these 

requirements. However, the Department 

is concerned that some institutions 

might attempt to circumvent the 

proposed gainful employment standards 

(see the July 26, 2010 NPRM, 75 FR 

43638–43640) by adding new programs 

before those standards would take 

effect. Although the proposed standards 

would evaluate most programs based on 

past performance, newly offered 

programs would not be subject to the 

standards for several years until they 

established an operating history. For 

example, an institution may seek to 

offer a significant number of new 

programs that would not be evaluated 

under the new standards for up to five 

years as a contingency plan in case its 

current programs are eliminated or 

restricted under measures that would be 

established in the final gainful 

employment regulations. We believe 

that such an approach by an institution 

should be examined closely to 

determine whether those new programs 

are substantially different and offer 

more potential benefits to its students. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

66670 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

With these regulations, the Department 

intends to mitigate the potential for this 

type of response by identifying such 

circumstances and requiring those new 

programs to be approved. 

We believe this approach, based on a 

program development process 

articulated by a wide range of 

commenters and augmented by other 

information available to the Department, 

will provide some assurance that a new 

gainful employment program is needed 

at an institution and is responsive to 

student and employer needs. Moreover, 

we believe that these requirements 

correspond to the process an institution 

should follow in performing its due 

diligence responsibilities with respect to 

establishing an additional program. 

The Department will continue to 

consider changes to these approval 

requirements as part of its consideration 

of the remaining issues presented in the 

gainful employment NPRM. Toward 

that end, we are continuing to consider 

carefully the suggestions to exclude 

postbaccalaureate certificate programs 

from the new program notice and 

approval process and ways to provide a 

more flexible approach for approving 

programs in new and emerging fields. In 

addition, we intend to address the 

questions raised on employer 

affirmations and enrollment projections 

in the subsequent final regulations for 

gainful employment. 

Finally, we intend to implement 

administrative procedures that should 

mitigate the burden on institutions and 

the Department in submitting and 

reviewing notices for new programs. For 

example, the Department may allow an 

eligible institution to combine several 

new programs in one notice if the 

institution used the same, or similar, 

processes in developing those programs. 

An eligible institution may submit a 

notice for a new program that will be 

offered at multiple locations of the 

institution. 

With regard to the concern that the 

number of program approvals, estimated 

in the NPRM at 650 over the first 3 

years, is underestimated, we looked at 

the number of new program 

submissions to Federal Student Aid 

over the period from October 1, 2009 

through September 30, 2010. Based on 

this data, we determined that a better 

estimate was a total of 1,919 new 

programs annually. Thus, over a threeyear period the estimate would be 5,757 

new programs. We note that the 

procedure in the regulations will result 

in most of those new programs being 

offered solely by providing notice to the 

Department, and that the separate 

approval process will be used for a 

much smaller number of those new 

programs. 

Changes: We have revised § 600.10(c), 

as suggested by some of the 

commenters, to provide that an 

institution must provide at least 90 days 

advance notice to the Department of its 

plans to offer a new educational 

program that leads to gainful 

employment in a recognized 

occupation. Section 600.10(c)(1)(v) has 

also been revised to provide that the 

Secretary may notify an institution it is 

required to obtain approval for a new 

educational program. An institution 

does not have to provide notice to add 

a non-gainful-employment program 

under this section, except for direct 

assessment programs under 34 CFR 

668.10 or unless required to do so by a 

provision in its Program Participation 

Agreement. Under revised 

§ 600.10(c)(3), an institution that is 

required to obtain approval from the 

Department for a new program, but does 

not obtain the Department’s approval or 

that incorrectly determines that an 

educational program is an eligible 

program for title IV, HEA program 

purposes, must repay to the Secretary 

all HEA program funds received by the 

institution for that educational program, 

and all the title IV, HEA program funds 

received by or on behalf of students who 

enrolled in that program. 

We have amended § 600.20(d) to 

specify that an institution must provide 

notice at least 90 days in advance for a 

new educational program that leads to 

gainful employment in a recognized 

occupation. The notice must describe 

how the institution determined the need 

for the program and how the program 

was designed to meet local market 

needs, or for an online program, 

regional or national market needs. The 

institution also must describe in the 

notice how the program was reviewed 

or approved by, or developed in 

conjunction with, business advisory 

committees, program integrity boards, 

public or private oversight or regulatory 

agencies, and businesses that would 

likely employ graduates of the program. 

Additionally, the institution must 

include documentation that the program 

has been approved by its accrediting 

agency or is otherwise included in the 

institution’s accreditation by its 

accrediting agency, or comparable 

documentation if the institution is a 

public postsecondary vocational 

institution approved by a recognized 

State agency for the approval of public 

postsecondary vocational education in 

lieu of accreditation. In addition, an 

institution must include in its notice a 

description of any wage analysis it may 

have performed, including any 

consideration of BLS wage data that is 

related to the new program. The 

institution must also provide the date of 

the first day of class of the new program. 

Section 600.20(d) also provides that 

the Department may require the 

institution to obtain approval of the new 

program, and submit additional 

information about it. This section also 

describes the factors the Department 

will consider in evaluating the 

institution’s application and specifies 

that if the Department denies an 

application from an institution to offer 

an additional program under 

§ 600.10(c), the Department will explain 

in the denial how the institution failed 

to demonstrate the new program would 

likely lead to gainful employment in a 

recognized occupation. The institution 

will be permitted to respond to the 

concerns raised by the Department in 

the denial and request reconsideration 

of the denial. 

As discussed in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 section of this 

preamble, we have corrected the OMB 

control number for § 600.20 to read 

‘‘1845–0012’’. 

Executive Order 12866 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to the requirements of 

the Executive Order and subject to 

review by the OMB. Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action likely to result in a rule that may 

(1) have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); (2) create serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; (3) materially alter the 

budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 

user fees, or loan programs or the rights 

and obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive order. 

Pursuant to the terms of the Executive 

order, we have determined that this 

regulatory action will not have an 

annual effect on the economy of more 

than $100 million. Therefore, this action 

is not ‘‘economically significant’’ and 

subject to OMB review under section 

3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 66671 

Notwithstanding this determination, we 

have assessed the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this regulatory action 

and have determined that the benefits 

justify the costs. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

Student debt is more prevalent and 

individual borrowers are incurring more 

debt than ever before. Twenty years ago, 

only one in six full-time freshmen at 

four-year public colleges and 

universities took out a Federal student 

loan; now more than half do. Today, 

nearly two-thirds of all graduating 

college seniors carry student loan debt. 

The availability of Federal student aid 

allows students to access postsecondary 

educational opportunities crucial to 

employment. For-profit postsecondary 

education along with occupationally 

specific training at other institutions has 

long played an important role in the 

nation’s system of postsecondary 

education. Many of the institutions 

offering these programs have recently 

pioneered new approaches to enrolling, 

teaching, and graduating students. In 

recent years, enrollment in for-profit 

institutions has grown rapidly to 1.8 

million students, nearly tripling 

between 2000 and 2008. This trend is 

promising and supports President 

Obama’s goal of leading the world in the 

percentage of college graduates by 2020. 

This goal cannot be achieved without a 

healthy and productive for-profit sector 

of higher education. However, the 

programs offered by the for-profit sector 

must lead to measurable outcomes, or 

those programs will devalue 

postsecondary credentials through 

oversupply. 

The proposed gainful employment 

regulations described in the NPRM 

published on July 26, 2010 received a 

record number of comments for a 

regulation proposed by the Department. 

The Department expects to publish the 

subsequent, final gainful employment 

regulations in early 2011 with an 

effective date of July 1, 2012. The 

provision related to approval of 

additional programs is addressed 

separately in these final regulations and 

will take effect on July 1, 2011. 

Specifically, these regulations establish 

interim requirements regarding the 

approval of gainful employment 

programs with initial enrollment 

beginning after July 1, 2011. 

In general, for institutions with good 

records administering their programs, 

we believe that most new programs will 

satisfy these requirements and will not 

need to obtain approval of their 

programs from the Department. 

However, the Department is concerned 

that some institutions might attempt to 

circumvent the proposed gainful 

employment standards (see the July 26, 

2010 NPRM, 75 FR 43638–43640) by 

adding new programs before those 

standards would take effect. Although 

the proposed standards would evaluate 

most programs based on past 

performance, newly offered programs 

would not be subject to the standards 

for several years until they established 

an operating history. For example, an 

institution may seek to offer a 

significant number of new programs that 

would not be evaluated under the new 

standards for up to five years as a 

contingency plan in case its current 

programs are eliminated or restricted 

under measures that would be used in 

the final gainful employment 

regulations. We believe that such an 

approach should be examined closely to 

determine whether those new programs 

are substantially different and offer 

more potential benefits to its students. 

With these regulations, the Department 

intends to mitigate the potential for this 

type of response. Accordingly, where an 

institution is required to obtain 

approval from the Department, the 

Department will consider the following 

factors when reviewing an institution’s 

notice: (1) The institution’s 

demonstrated financial responsibility 

and administrative capability in 

operating its existing programs, (2) 

whether the additional educational 

program is one of several new programs 

that would replace similar programs 

currently offered by the institution, as 

opposed to supplementing or expanding 

the current programs provided by the 

institution, (3) whether the number of 

additional educational programs being 

added is inconsistent with the 

institution’s historic program offerings, 

growth, and operations, and (4) the 

sufficiency of the process used and 

determination made by the institution to 

offer an additional educational program 

that leads to gainful employment in a 

recognized occupation. The Department 

may decline to approve a new program 

based upon the last three of these four 

factors. The Department will also take 

into consideration other publicly 

available data, including data from the 

U.S. Department of Labor, about the job 

prospects for individuals that would 

complete the new programs. 

If the Department denies an 

application from an institution to offer 

an additional program under 

§ 600.10(c), the Department will explain 

in the denial how the institution failed 

to demonstrate the new program would 

likely lead to gainful employment in a 

recognized occupation. The institution 

will be permitted to respond to the 

concerns raised by the Department in 

the denial and request reconsideration 

of the denial. We also note that even if 

the new program is not yet approved or 

is denied, an institution may still offer 

the program but students would be 

ineligible to receive title IV, HEA 

program funds to pay the costs of 

attendance associated with that 

program. In the case of a denial, the 

institution could later seek to add the 

program and provide additional 

information about students who 

completed it. 

We intend to establish performancebased requirements in subsequent 

regulations early in 2011 for approving 

additional programs. Until those 

subsequent regulations take effect, 

institutions must comply with the 

interim requirements in these 

regulations. As discussed elsewhere in 

this preamble, we will continue to 

consider whether to exclude certain 

programs from these approval 

requirements as a part of our 

consideration of the remaining issues 

presented in the gainful employment 

NPRM. Toward that end, we are 

continuing to consider carefully the 

suggestions to exclude 

postbaccalaureate certificate programs 

from the new program approval process 

and ways to provide a more flexible 

approach for approving programs in 

new and emerging fields. In addition, 

we intend to address the questions 

raised on employer affirmations and 

enrollment projections in the context of 

the subsequent final regulations for 

gainful employment in early 2011. 

As described earlier, we also intend to 

implement administrative procedures 

that mitigate the burden on institutions 

and the Department in submitting and 

reviewing information for new 

programs. For example, the Department 

may allow an institution to combine 

several new programs in one 

notification if the institution used the 

same, or similar, processes in 

developing those programs. Further, an 

eligible institution may submit a notice 

for a new program that will be offered 

at multiple locations of the institution. 

A description of the additional 

programs proposed regulations, the 

reasons for adopting them, and an 

analysis of the regulations’ effects was 

presented in the NPRM published on 

July 26, 2010. This updated Regulatory 

Impact Analysis describes changes 

considered in response to comments 

received about the additional programs 

provision. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

66672 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

In the NPRM published on July 26, 

2010, the Department proposed 

requirements for institutions to establish 

additional programs subject to the 

gainful employment regulations. In that 

regard, the NPRM provided that, as part 

of an institution’s application to 

establish an additional program, the 

institution would need to provide (1) 

the projected enrollment for the 

program for the next five years for each 

location of the institution that will offer 

the additional program, (2) 

documentation from employers not 

affiliated with the institution that the 

program’s curriculum aligns with 

recognized occupations at those 

employers’ businesses and that there are 

projected job vacancies or expected 

demand for those occupations at those 

businesses, and (3) if the additional 

program constitutes a substantive 

change, documentation of the approval 

of the substantive change from its 

accrediting agency. 

As described elsewhere in this 

preamble, we received a range of 

comments related to this provision. 

Some were supportive of the proposed 

regulations but had specific 

recommendations for the form and 

content of the affirmations from 

unaffiliated employers. Other 

commenters requested clarification 

about how many affirmations would be 

needed and what is considered a local 

employer and how a local employer 

would be determined with respect to 

online programs or programs whose 

students pursue jobs nationally. 

Commenters also asked us to clarify 

how the proposed requirement that the 

employer be unaffiliated with the 

institution would affect the valuable 

internship and externship relationships 

between institutions and employers, 

and what metrics would be used to align 

an employer’s projected needs to the 

size of the program. Other commenters 

expressed concern that the proposed 

provisions would stifle an institution’s 

ability to establish innovative programs 

for emerging fields in anticipation of 

future job opportunities. Several 

commenters suggested that the proposed 

provision interfered with curriculum 

development and internal decisions of 

schools and would undermine the close 

relationships programs subject to the 

proposed gainful employment 

regulations develop with local 

employers. 

In general, we agree with commenters 

who suggested that the program 

approval process for additional 

programs should apply only to an 

institution with programs in a restricted 

or ineligible status. This would relieve 

the burden on institutions and the 

Department, and would allow 

institutions with a record of strong 

performance to establish new programs 

more expediently. However, we are not 

addressing in these regulations the 

standards that will be used to gauge the 

performance of gainful employment 

programs and the consequences of not 

meeting those standards. These 

regulations address in only a very 

limited manner the provisions relating 

to the Secretary’s approval of additional 

educational programs. Modifications to 

make the approval process for 

additional programs performance based 

will be addressed in subsequent 

regulations. 

Under the requirements established in 

these regulations, the Department will 

instead rely on a notice from the 

institution submitted at least 90 days 

prior to the time when the institution 

plans to offer the new program that 

provides a narrative explanation of why 

and how the new program was 

developed. Specifically, an institution 

must describe how it determined the 

need for the new program and how the 

program was designed to meet local 

market needs, or for an online program, 

regional or national market needs by, for 

example, consulting BLS data or State 

labor data systems or consulting with 

State workforce agencies. The 

institution also must describe how the 

program was reviewed or approved by, 

or developed in conjunction with, 

business advisory committees, program 

integrity boards, public or private 

oversight or regulatory agencies, and 

businesses that would likely employ 

graduates of the program. Additionally, 

the institution must include in its notice 

documentation that the program has 

been approved by its accrediting agency 

or is otherwise included in the 

institution’s accreditation by its 

accrediting agency, or comparable 

documentation if the institution is a 

public postsecondary vocational 

institution approved by a recognized 

State agency for the approval of public 

postsecondary vocational education in 

lieu of accreditation. The notice from an 

institution should also include any 

information that describes how the 

program would be offered in connection 

with, or in response to, an initiative by 

a governmental entity, such as the oral 

health program with the Federal support 

described in the comments. 

Additionally, an institution must 

include in its notice a description of any 

wage analysis it may have performed, 

including any consideration of BLS 

wage data that is related to the new 

program. Based on this information, the 

Department will determine whether 

approval is required, and if required the 

Department will consider the notice as 

an application. Under the regulations, 

an institution does not have to apply for 

approval to add a program under 

§ 600.20 unless (a) it has been directed 

to do so by the Department under 

§ 600.20(c)(5), (b) it is a direct 

assessment programs under 34 CFR 

668.10, or (c) it is required to do so by 

a provision in its Program Participation 

Agreement. 

As discussed in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 section of this 

preamble, the Department estimates that 

institutions will submit notifications for 

approximately 914 new nondegree 

programs and 1,005 new degree 

programs annually under the process set 

forth in these final regulations, or a total 

of 5,757 over a three-year period. 

The effect of these changes on the cost 

estimates prepared for and discussed in 

the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the 

NPRM is discussed in the Costs section 

of this Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

Benefits 

We believe the approach set forth in 

these regulations, based on a program 

development process articulated by 

commenters representing both the 

public and private sectors, provides 

some assurance that new gainful 

employment programs are needed and 

responsive to student and employer 

needs. This provision results in no net 

costs to the government over 2011– 

2015. The administrative expenses 

associated with the approval process 

will be covered by the Department’s 

existing discretionary funds. 

Costs 

The process established by these 

regulations is based on institutional 

practices described in comments 

received from representatives of public 

and private institutions. Accordingly, 

many entities wishing to continue to 

participate in the title IV, HEA programs 

have already absorbed many of the 

administrative costs related to 

implementing these regulations, and 

additional costs would primarily be due 

to documenting the program 

development process. Other institutions 

may have to establish a program 

development process, but the 

regulations allow flexibility in meeting 

the core requirements. 

In assessing the potential impact of 

these regulations, the Department 

recognizes that the provision may 

increase workload for some program 

participants. This additional workload 

is discussed in more detail under the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 66673 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

section of this preamble. Additional 

workload would normally be expected 

to result in estimated costs associated 

with either the hiring of additional 

employees or opportunity costs related 

to the reassignment of existing staff from 

other activities. In total, these changes 

are estimated to increase burden on 

entities participating in the Federal 

Student Assistance programs by 3,591 

hours. 

As detailed in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 section of this 

preamble, the additional paperwork 

burden is attributable to the process of 

documenting and submitting a 

description of how the institution 

determined to develop a new program. 

We estimate that this process would 

take institutions 3,591 hours and the 

costs would be $91,032 under 

information collection 1845–0012. In 

response to comments that the 

regulations would be costly, we 

reviewed the wage rates for more recent 

information and the share of work 

performed by office workers and 

management and professional staff. This 

increased the wage rate for gainful 

employment related matters from $20.71 

to $25.35. 

Because data underlying many of 

these burden estimates was limited, in 

the NPRM, the Department requested 

comments and supporting information 

for use in developing more robust 

estimates. In particular, we asked 

institutions to provide detailed data on 

actual staffing and system costs 

associated with implementing the 

regulations regarding additional 

programs. Some commenters believed 

the estimate of 650 new programs 

annually was low and suggested 6,500 

per year was a more reasonable figure. 

The Department reviewed internal data 

sources and estimated that 1,919 

programs would be reviewed annually, 

or a total of 5,757 over a three-year 

period. As discussed above, we also 

reviewed the wage rates for more recent 

data and the share of work allocated to 

managerial and professional staff. 

Net Budget Impacts 

The regulations are estimated to have 

a net budget impact of $0.0 million over 

FY 2011–2015. Consistent with the 

requirements of the Credit Reform Act 

of 1990, budget cost estimates for the 

student loan programs reflect the 

estimated net present value of all future 

non-administrative Federal costs 

associated with a cohort of loans. (A 

cohort reflects all loans originated in a 

given fiscal year.) 

These estimates were developed using 

the Office of Management and Budget’s 

Credit Subsidy Calculator. This 

calculator will also be used for 

reestimates of prior-year costs, which 

will be performed each year beginning 

in FY 2009. The OMB calculator takes 

projected future cash flows from the 

Department’s student loan cost 

estimation model and produces 

discounted subsidy rates reflecting the 

net present value of all future Federal 

costs associated with awards made in a 

given fiscal year. Values are calculated 

using a ‘‘basket of zeros’’ methodology 

under which each cash flow is 

discounted using the interest rate of a 

zero-coupon Treasury bond with the 

same maturity as that cash flow. To 

ensure comparability across programs, 

this methodology is incorporated into 

the calculator and used governmentwide to develop estimates of the Federal 

cost of credit programs. Accordingly, 

the Department believes it is the 

appropriate methodology to use in 

developing estimates for these 

regulations. That said, however, in 

developing the following Accounting 

Statement, the Department consulted 

with OMB on how to integrate our 

discounting methodology with the 

discounting methodology traditionally 

used in developing regulatory impact 

analyses. 

Absent evidence on the impact of 

these regulations on student behavior, 

budget cost estimates were based on 

behavior as reflected in various 

Department data sets and longitudinal 

surveys listed under Assumptions, 

Limitations, and Data Sources. Program 

cost estimates were generated by 

running projected cash flows related to 

each provision through the 

Department’s student loan cost 

estimation model. Student loan cost 

estimates are developed across five risk 

categories: Two-year and less 

proprietary institutions; two-year and 

less public and private nonprofit 

institutions; freshmen and sophomores 

at four-year institutions; juniors and 

seniors at four-year institutions; and 

graduate students. Risk categories have 

separate assumptions based on the 

historical pattern of behavior—for 

example, the likelihood of default or the 

likelihood to use statutory deferment or 

discharge benefits—of borrowers in each 

category. 

The Department estimates no 

budgetary impact for these regulations 

as there is no data indicating that the 

provisions will have any impact on the 

volume or composition of Federal 

student aid programs. 

Assumptions, Limitations, and Data 

Sources 

Impact estimates provided in the 

preceding section reflect a prestatutory 

baseline in which the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act changes implemented 

in these regulations do not exist. Costs 

have been quantified for five years. 

In developing these estimates, a range 

of data sources were used, including 

data from the National Student Loan 

Data System, and operational and 

financial data from Department of 

Education systems. Data from other 

sources, such as the U.S. Census Bureau 

or the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

were also used. Data on administrative 

burden at participating institutions are 

extremely limited. 

Elsewhere in this SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section we identify and 

explain burdens specifically associated 

with information collection 

requirements. See the heading 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at http:// 

www.Whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars/ 

a004/a-4.pdf), in Table 2, we have 

prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

estimated expenditures associated with 

the provisions of these regulations. This 

table provides our best estimate of the 

changes in Federal student aid 

payments as a result of these 

regulations. Expenditures are classified 

as transfers from the Federal 

government to student loan borrowers. 

TABLE 1—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

[In millions] 

Category Transfers 

Annualized Monetized Costs .................................................................... $0.1. 

Cost of compliance with paperwork requirements. 

Annualized Monetized Transfers .............................................................. $0. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

66674 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES—Continued 

[In millions] 

Category Transfers 

From Whom To Whom? ........................................................................... Federal Government To Student Loan Borrowers. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that these 

regulations would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. These 

regulations would affect institutions 

that participate in title IV, HEA 

programs and loan borrowers. The 

definition of ‘‘small entity’’ in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act encompasses 

‘‘small businesses,’’ ‘‘small 

organizations,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdictions.’’ The definition of ‘‘small 

business’’ comes from the definition of 

‘‘small business concern’’ under section 

3 of the Small Business Act as well as 

regulations issued by the U.S. Small 

Business Administration (SBA). The 

SBA defines a ‘‘small business concern’’ 

as one that is ‘‘organized for profit; has 

a place of business in the U.S.; operates 

primarily within the U.S. or makes a 

significant contribution to the U.S. 

economy through payment of taxes or 

use of American products, materials or 

labor * * *’’ ‘‘Small organizations,’’ are 

further defined as any ‘‘not-for-profit 

enterprise that is independently owned 

and operated and not dominant in its 

field.’’ The definition of ‘‘small entity’’ 

also includes ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdictions,’’ which includes ‘‘school 

districts with a population less than 

50,000.’’ 

Data from the Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System 

(IPEDS) indicate that roughly 4,379 

institutions participating in the Federal 

student assistance programs meet the 

definition of ‘‘small entities.’’ The 

following table provides the distribution 

of institutions and students by revenue 

category and institutional control. 

Revenue category 

Public Private NFP Proprietary Tribal 

Number of 

schools 

Number of 

students 

Number of 

schools 

Number of 

students 

Number of 

schools 

Number of 

students 

Number of 

schools 

Number of 

students 

$0 to $500,000 ................. 43 2,124 103 13,208 510 38,774 .................... ....................

$500,000 to $1 million ..... 44 7,182 81 9,806 438 61,906 1 137 

$1 million to $3 million ..... 98 29,332 243 65,614 745 217,715 3 555 

$3 million to $5 million ..... 75 65,442 138 60,923 303 182,362 .................... ....................

$5 million to $7 million ..... 49 73,798 99 62,776 224 185,705 5 2,525 

$7 million to $10 million ... 78 129,079 110 84,659 228 235,888 9 4,935 

$10 million and above ...... 1,585 18,480,000 1,067 4,312,010 383 1,793,951 14 18,065 

Total .......................... 1,972 18,786,957 1,841 4,608,996 2,831 2,716,301 32 26,217 

Approximately two-thirds of these 

institutions are for-profit schools subject 

to these final regulations. Other affected 

small institutions include small 

community colleges and tribally 

controlled schools. For these 

institutions, the program development 

documentation requirements imposed 

under the regulations could impose 

some new costs as described below. The 

impact of the regulations on individuals 

is not subject to the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

As detailed in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 section of these 

final regulations, the regulations will 

require institutions to have and to 

document a process for establishing 

additional programs for programs 

subject to the gainful employment 

regulations that begin enrolling students 

after July 1, 2011. There are no explicit 

growth limitations or employer 

verification requirements. The estimated 

total hours, costs, and requirements 

applicable to small entities from these 

provisions on an annual basis are 2,370 

hours and $60,081, of which $53,104 is 

associated with the initial submission 

and $10,571 is associated with 

institutions that submit additional 

information and work with the 

Department on a program subject to 

denial. We estimate that approximately 

350 of the institutions submitting 

programs in the interim period will be 

small institutions, resulting in estimated 

burden of 7 hours and $152 per small 

institution for initial submission of 

material. For the smaller number of 

institutions with programs that are 

initially rejected, there would be 

additional costs to submit additional 

paperwork and respond to the 

Department’s denial. We estimate that 

10 percent of submissions would go 

through this process, resulting in an 

additional 12 hours and $302 per 

institution. In response to comments 

that the regulations would be costly, we 

reviewed the wage rates for more recent 

information and the share of work 

performed by office workers and 

management and professional staff. This 

increased the wage rate for gainful 

employment related matters from $20.71 

to $25.35. 

No alternative provisions were 

considered that would target small 

institutions with exemptions or 

additional time for compliance as this 

provision builds on existing industry 

practices. In the NPRM, the Secretary 

invited comments from small 

institutions and other affected entities 

as to whether they believed the 

proposed changes would have a 

significant economic impact on them 

and requested evidence to support that 

belief. The comments received related to 

this provision were described in the 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

section of this preamble. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Section 600.20(d) in these final 

regulations contains information 

collection requirements. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department has 

submitted a copy of this section to OMB 

for its review. However, affected parties 

do not have to comply with the 

information collection requirements in 

§ 600.20(d) until the Department of 

Education publishes in the Federal 

Register the control number assigned by 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 66675 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to these information collection 

requirements. Publication of the control 

number notifies the public that OMB 

has approved these information 

collection requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

Section 600.20—Application Procedures 

for Establishing, Reestablishing, 

Maintaining, or Expanding Institutional 

Eligibility and Certification 

The final regulations require 

institutions to apply to the Department 

for approval to add new educational 

programs that are subject to the gainful 

employment regulations. The 

Department will review the institution’s 

narrative application that explains why 

and how the new program was designed 

to meet local market needs or in the case 

of an online program, regional or 

national market needs. The institution’s 

notification must indicate how the 

program was reviewed or approved by, 

or developed in conjunction with 

business advisory committees, program 

integrity boards, public or private 

oversight or regulatory agencies, and 

businesses that would employ graduates 

of the new program. Because this 

regulatory approach parallels current 

practice, the only increase in burden 

relates to the development of the 

narrative, which will be a relatively 

small additional effort. We did not 

include the other tasks, analysis, and 

burden associated with activities which, 

separate and apart from this collection, 

are already part of an institution’s due 

diligence in determining whether to 

offer a new program. 

In addition, we expect that an 

institution developing multiple new 

programs will combine its submissions 

into a single notice for all the new 

programs, thus reducing the burden 

associated with creating and submitting 

the narrative. 

Our estimate of increased burden is 

divided into two components. The first 

component is the burden associated 

with providing notice of nondegree 

programs that train students for gainful 

employment in a recognized 

occupation. The second component is 

the burden associated with providing 

notice of degree programs that train 

students for gainful employment in a 

recognized occupation, consistent with 

§ 668.8(d). 

We estimate that annually there will 

be 914 new nondegree programs that 

train students for gainful employment in 

a recognized occupation submitted by 

notice. We estimate that there will be 

267 new nondegree programs submitted 

by proprietary institutions and that the 

average amount of time to collect the 

information and submit it to the 

Department will be 2.5 hours per 

submission, which will increase burden 

by 668 hours under OMB 1845–0012. 

We estimate that there will be 110 

new nondegree programs submissions 

by private nonprofit institutions and 

that the average amount of time to 

collect the information and submit it to 

the Department will be 2.5 hours per 

submission, which will increase burden 

by 275 hours under OMB 1845–0012. 

We estimate that there will be 537 

new nondegree programs submissions 

by public institutions and that the 

average amount of time to collect the 

information and submit it to the 

Department will be 2.5 hours per 

submission, which will increase burden 

by 1,343 hours under OMB 1845–0012. 

Collectively, we estimate that the 

annual burden associated with the 

submission of nondegree programs will 

increase by 2,286 hours under OMB 

1845–0012. We estimate that annually 

there will be 1,005 new degree programs 

that train students for gainful 

employment in a recognized occupation 

submitted to the Department. Consistent 

with these final regulations and the 

requirements of § 668.8(d), all new 

degree programs at proprietary 

institutions will have to submit their 

narrative descriptions of why and how 

the institution determined to offer their 

new program or programs, as well as 

send us documentation of any 

accrediting agency or State agency 

approvals. We estimate that there will 

be 1,005 new degree programs for which 

proprietary institutions will submit 

notifications on an annual basis. Of the 

1,005 new degree programs, we estimate 

that 335 will be included in individual 

notifications and that the average 

amount of time to collect the 

information and submit it to the 

Department will be 1.75 hours per 

submission, which will increase burden 

by 586 hours under OMB 1845–0012. Of 

the remaining 670 new degree programs, 

we estimate that these will be included 

in grouped submissions averaging five 

new programs in each group, resulting 

in 134 submissions (670 divided by 5). 

We estimate that the average amount of 

time to collect this information and 

submit it to the Department will be 2.25 

hours per submission, which will 

increase burden by 302 hours under 

OMB 1845–0012. 

Collectively, we estimate that the 

annual burden associated with the 

submission of notifications for new 

degree programs will increase by 888 

hours under OMB 1845–0012. 

The final regulations in § 600.20(d) 

also provide a process by which the 

Department will contact the institution 

prior to denying a new program 

notification to identify concerns and 

permit the institution to supplement its 

notification with additional 

information. 

We estimate that of the 914 new 

nondegree program submissions that 

there will be questions regarding 92 of 

the new programs where those 

institutions will have the opportunity to 

provide additional information to the 

Secretary. We estimate that of the 267 

new nondegree programs submitted by 

proprietary institutions that in 27 of 

those submissions, upon contact from 

the Department, the institution will 

submit additional information. We 

estimate the collection and reporting of 

the additional information, on average 

to take 3 hours per submission, which 

will increase burden by 81 hours under 

OMB 1845–0012. 

We estimate that of the 110 new 

nondegree programs submitted by 

private not-for profit institutions that in 

11 of those submissions, upon contact 

from the Department, the institution 

will submit additional information. We 

estimate the collection and reporting of 

the additional information, on average 

to take 3 hours per submission, which 

will increase burden by 33 hours under 

OMB 1845–0012. 

We estimate that of the 537 new 

nondegree program submitted by public 

institutions that in 54 of those 

submissions, upon contact from the 

Department, the institution will submit 

additional information. We estimate the 

collection, submission, and reporting of 

the additional information, on average 

to take 3 hours per submission, which 

will increase burden by 162 hours under 

OMB 1845–0012. 

Collectively, we estimate that the 

annual burden associated with the 

submission of additional information 

after being contacted by the Department 

regarding the new nondegree programs 

will increase by 276 hours under OMB 

1845–0012. 

We estimate that of the 1,005 new 

degree program submissions that there 

will be questions raised by the 

Department regarding 34 individual 

program submissions and that the 

average amount of time to collect and to 

report the additional information will be 

3 hours per submission, which will 

increase burden by 102 hours under 

OMB 1845–0012. Of the remaining 67 

new degree programs that are submitted 

as multiple program submissions 

(averaging 5 new programs per 

submission), we estimate that there will 

be 13 multiple submissions (67 divided 

by 5) where questions will be raised by 

the Department and that the average 

amount of time to collect and to report 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

66676 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the additional information will be 3 

hours per submission, which will 

increase burden by 39 hours under OMB 

1845–0012. 

Collectively, we estimate that the 

annual burden associated with the 

submission of additional information 

after being contacted by the Department 

regarding the new degree programs will 

increase by 141 hours under OMB 

1845–0012. 

In total, the final regulations in 

§ 600.20(d) will increase burden by 

3,591 hours under OMB 1845–0012. 

[Note: The prior OMB designation for all 

new degree and nondegree programs 

submitted for approval was OMB 1840– 

0098 which was then transposed to 

OMB 1845–0098, but is corrected in 

these final regulations to OMB 1845– 

0012.] 

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION

Regulatory section Information collection Collection 

600.20(d) .................. This regulatory section requires institutions to apply to the Department for approval to add new programs that are subject to the gainful employment regulations. Institutions will describe how the institution determined the need for 

the program and how the program was designed to meet local market 

needs, or for an online program, regional or national market needs. In addition, the institution will describe how the program was reviewed or approved 

by, or developed in conjunction with outside entities such as, but not limited 

to, business advisory committees, program integrity boards, and public or 

private oversight or regulatory agencies. The institution will also submit 

under these final regulations copies of documentation that the program has 

been approved by its accrediting agency or recognized State agency. The 

Department will contact institutions before it denies a new program and identify areas of concern and permit the institution to supplement its notification 

with additional information.

OMB 1845–0012. The burden will increase by 3,591 hours. 

Intergovernmental Review 

These programs are not subject to 

Executive Order 12372 and the 

regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

Assessment of Educational Impact 

In accordance with section 411 of the 

General Education Provisions Act, 20 

U.S.C. 1221e–4, and based on our own 

review, we have determined that these 

final regulations do not require 

transmission of information that any 

other agency or authority of the United 

States gathers or makes available. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

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) on the Internet 

at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ 

news/fedregister. To use PDF, you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

Note: 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 on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index/html. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance: 

84.007 FSEOG; 84.032 Federal Family 

Education Loan Program; 84.033 Federal 

Work-Study Program; 84.037 Federal Perkins 

Loan Program; 84.063 Federal Pell Grant 

Program; 84.069 LEAP; 84.268 William D. 

Ford Federal Direct Loan Program; 84.376 

ACG/SMART; 84.379 TEACH Grant Program) 

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 600 

Colleges and universities, Foreign 

relations, Grant programs—education, 

Loan programs—education, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Selective Service System, Student aid, 

Vocational education. 

Dated: October 26, 2010. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary amends part 

600 of title 34 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 600 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1003, 

1088, 1091, 1094, 1099b, and 1099c, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 600.10(c) is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 600.10 Date, extent, duration, and 

consequence of eligibility. 

* * * * * 

(c) Subsequent additions of 

educational programs. (1) An eligible 

institution must notify the Secretary at 

least 90 days before the first day of class 

when it intends to add an educational 

program that prepares students for 

gainful employment in a recognized 

occupation, as provided under 34 CFR 

668.8(c)(3) or (d). The institution may 

proceed to offer the program described 

in its notice, unless the Secretary 

advises the institution that the 

additional educational program must be 

approved under § 600.20(c)(1)(v). Except 

as provided for direct assessment 

programs under 34 CFR 668.10, or 

pursuant to a requirement included in 

an institution’s Program Participation 

Agreement under 34 CFR 668.14, the 

institution does not have to apply for 

approval to add any other type of 

educational program. 

(2) For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section, an additional educational 

program is— 

(i) A program with a Classification of 

Instructional Programs (CIP) code under 

the taxonomy of instructional program 

classifications and descriptions 

developed by the U.S. Department of 

Education’s National Center for 

Education Statistics that is different 

from any other program offered by the 

institution; 

(ii) A program that has the same CIP 

code as another program offered by the 

institution but leads to a different 

degree or certificate; or 

(iii) A program that the institution’s 

accrediting agency determines to be an 

additional program. 

(3) An institution must repay to the 

Secretary all HEA program funds 

received by the institution for an 

educational program, and all the title IV, 

HEA program funds received by or on 

behalf of students who enrolled in that 

program if the institution— 

(i) Fails to obtain the Secretary’s 

approval to offer an additional 

educational program that prepares 

students for gainful employment in a 

recognized occupation as provided 

under paragraph (c)(1) of this section; or 

(ii) Incorrectly determines that an 

educational program that is not subject 

to approval under paragraph (c)(1) of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 66677 

this section is an eligible program for 

title IV, HEA program purposes. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 600.20 is amended by: 

■ A. Revising the section heading. 

■ B. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(v). 

■ C. Revising paragraph (d). 

■ D. In the OMB control number 

parenthetical that appears after 

paragraph (h), removing the number 

‘‘1845–0098’’ and adding, in its place, 

the number ‘‘1845–0012’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 600.20 Notice and application 

procedures for establishing, reestablishing, 

maintaining, or expanding institutional 

eligibility and certification. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) The Secretary notifies, or has 

notified, the institution that it must 

apply for approval of an additional 

educational program or a location under 

§ 600.10(c). 

* * * * * 

(d) Notice and application. (1) Notice 

and application procedures. (i) To 

satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 

(a), (b), and (c) of this section, an 

institution must notify the Secretary of 

its intent to offer an additional 

educational program, or provide an 

application to expand its eligibility, in 

a format prescribed by the Secretary and 

provide all the information and 

documentation requested by the 

Secretary to make a determination of its 

eligibility and certification. 

(ii)(A) An institution that notifies the 

Secretary of its intent to offer an 

educational program under paragraph 

(c)(3) of this section must ensure that 

the Secretary receives the notice 

described in paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section at least 90 days before the first 

day of class of the educational program. 

(B) An institution that submits a 

notice in accordance with paragraph 

(d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section is not 

required to obtain approval to offer the 

additional educational program unless 

the Secretary alerts the institution at 

least 30 days before the first day of class 

that the program must be approved for 

title IV, HEA program purposes. If the 

Secretary alerts the institution that the 

additional educational program must be 

approved, the Secretary will treat the 

notice provided about the additional 

educational program as an application 

for that program. 

(C) If an institution does not provide 

timely notice in accordance with 

paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section, 

the institution must obtain approval of 

the additional educational program from 

the Secretary for title IV, HEA program 

purposes. 

(D) If an additional educational 

program is required to be approved by 

the Secretary for title IV, HEA program 

purposes under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) 

or (C) of this section, the Secretary may 

grant approval, or request further 

information prior to making a 

determination of whether to approve or 

deny the additional educational 

program. 

(E) When reviewing an application 

under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this 

section, the Secretary will take into 

consideration the following: 

(1) The institution’s demonstrated 

financial responsibility and 

administrative capability in operating 

its existing programs. 

(2) Whether the additional 

educational program is one of several 

new programs that will replace similar 

programs currently provided by the 

institution, as opposed to 

supplementing or expanding the current 

programs provided by the institution. 

(3) Whether the number of additional 

educational programs being added is 

inconsistent with the institution’s 

historic program offerings, growth, and 

operations. 

(4) Whether the process and 

determination by the institution to offer 

an additional educational program that 

leads to gainful employment in a 

recognized occupation is sufficient. 

(F)(1) If the Secretary denies an 

application from an institution to offer 

an additional educational program, the 

denial will be based on the factors 

described in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(E)(2), 

(3), and (4) of this section, and the 

Secretary will explain in the denial how 

the institution failed to demonstrate that 

the program is likely to lead to gainful 

employment in a recognized 

occupation. 

(2) If the Secretary denies the 

institution’s application to add an 

additional educational program, the 

Secretary will permit the institution to 

respond to the reasons for the denial 

and request reconsideration of the 

denial. 

(2) Notice format. An institution that 

notifies the Secretary of its intent to 

offer an additional educational program 

under paragraph (c)(3) of this section 

must at a minimum— 

(i) Describe in the notice how the 

institution determined the need for the 

program and how the program was 

designed to meet local market needs, or 

for an online program, regional or 

national market needs. This description 

must contain any wage analysis the 

institution may have performed, 

including any consideration of Bureau 

of Labor Statistics data related to the 

program; 

(ii) Describe in the notice how the 

program was reviewed or approved by, 

or developed in conjunction with, 

business advisory committees, program 

integrity boards, public or private 

oversight or regulatory agencies, and 

businesses that would likely employ 

graduates of the program; 

(iii) Submit documentation that the 

program has been approved by its 

accrediting agency or is otherwise 

included in the institution’s 

accreditation by its accrediting agency, 

or comparable documentation if the 

institution is a public postsecondary 

vocational institution approved by a 

recognized State agency for the approval 

of public postsecondary vocational 

education in lieu of accreditation; and 

(iv) Provide the date of the first day 

of class of the new program. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–27395 Filed 10–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3020 

[Docket Nos. MC2010–34, et al.] 

New Postal Products 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is updating 

the postal product lists. This action 

reflects the disposition of recent 

dockets, as reflected in Commission 

orders, and a publication policy adopted 

in a recent Commission order. The 

referenced policy assumes periodic 

updates. The updates are identified in 

the body of this document. The product 

lists, which are re-published in their 

entirety, include these updates. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 29, 2010. 

Applicability Dates: September 29, 

2010 (Inbound Competitive MultiService Agreements with Foreign Postal 

Operators 1); September 30, 2010 

(Inbound Market Dominant MultiService Agreements with Foreign Postal 

Operators 1 (Multi-Service Agreements). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

at stephen.sharfman@prc.gov or 202– 

789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document identifies recent updates to 

the product lists, which appear as 39 

CFR appendix A to subpart A of part 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES