Rule2026-10013
Accountability in Higher Education and Access Through Demand-Driven Workforce Pell: Pell Grant Exclusion Relating to Other Grant Aid; and Workforce Pell Grants
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 19, 2026
Effective
July 20, 2026
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Secretary of Education (Secretary) amends the regulations governing institutional eligibility, general provisions, and the Federal Pell Grant (Pell Grant) Program under title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended (the title IV, HEA programs). The final regulations implement statutory changes to the title IV, HEA programs included in the Working Families Tax Cuts Act (WFTCA), signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025. In the NPRM, we referenced the WFTCA as the "One Big Beautiful Bill"; however, for clarity and consistency in this final rule, we will instead use WFTCA. The WFTCA made numerous changes to the HEA, including changes to student eligibility requirements for the Pell Grant Program and the establishment of Workforce Pell Grants for students who enroll in a new type of eligible program called an "eligible workforce program," intended to be a high-quality, performance-based, short-term program that supports America's workforce needs.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 96 (Tuesday, May 19, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 96 (Tuesday, May 19, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29254-29338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-10013]
[[Page 29253]]
Vol. 91
Tuesday,
No. 96
May 19, 2026
Part II
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Parts 600, 668, and 690
Accountability in Higher Education and Access Through Demand-Driven
Workforce Pell: Pell Grant Exclusion Relating to Other Grant Aid; and
Workforce Pell Grants; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 91 , No. 96 / Tuesday, May 19, 2026 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 29254]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 600, 668, and 690
[Docket ID ED-2026-OPE-0133]
RIN 1840-AD99
Accountability in Higher Education and Access Through Demand-
Driven Workforce Pell: Pell Grant Exclusion Relating to Other Grant
Aid; and Workforce Pell Grants
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) amends the regulations
governing institutional eligibility, general provisions, and the
Federal Pell Grant (Pell Grant) Program under title IV of the Higher
Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended (the title IV, HEA programs).
The final regulations implement statutory changes to the title IV, HEA
programs included in the Working Families Tax Cuts Act (WFTCA), signed
into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025. In the NPRM, we referenced
the WFTCA as the ``One Big Beautiful Bill''; however, for clarity and
consistency in this final rule, we will instead use WFTCA. The WFTCA
made numerous changes to the HEA, including changes to student
eligibility requirements for the Pell Grant Program and the
establishment of Workforce Pell Grants for students who enroll in a new
type of eligible program called an ``eligible workforce program,''
intended to be a high-quality, performance-based, short-term program
that supports America's workforce needs.
DATES: This rule is effective July 20, 2026, except for amendatory
instructions 10 and 13, which are effective May 19, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Washington, Office of
Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, 5th Floor, Washington,
DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 987-0911. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e889899a8786c69f899b8081868f9c8786a88d8cc68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c1a0a0b3aeafefb6a0b2a9a8afa6b5aeaf81a4a5efa6aeb7">[email protected]</span></a>.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
A brief summary of these final regulations is available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/ED-2026-OPE-0133">www.regulations.gov/docket/ED-2026-OPE-0133</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Abbreviations
II. Executive Summary
1. Summary of Major Provisions
2. Summary of Costs and Benefits
III. Purpose of Regulatory Action
IV. Background
V. Authority for the Regulatory Action
VI. Analysis of Public Comment and Changes
1. Process for Out of Scope Comments
2. Public Comment Period
VII. Regulatory Analyses
1. Regulatory Planning and Review Including Regulatory Impact
Analysis
a. Need for Regulatory Action
b. Summary of Comments and Changes From the NPRM
c. Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers
d. Accounting Statement
e. Alternatives Considered
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
3. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
4. Congressional Review Act Intergovernmental Review
Assessment of Education Impact
Federalism
List of Subjects
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Abbreviations
Department of Education (Department)
Working Families Tax Cuts Act (WFTCA)
Secretary of Education (Secretary)
Federal Pell Grant (Pell Grant) Program
Title IV of the Higher Education Act (title IV, HEA)
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
Cost of Attendance (COA)
Inspector General (OIG)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA)
Eligibility and Certification Approval Report (ECAR)
Eligible Training Provider List (ETPL)
State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA)
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs)
Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs)
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
Prison Education Program (PEP)
Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP)
Online Program Management (OPM)
On-the-Job Learning (OJL)
II. Executive Summary
The Secretary codifies two changes made to the HEA by the WFTCA
through these regulations. The two changes are:
1. Pell Grant Ineligibility When Other Aid Covers Full Cost. The
WFTCA prevents students from qualifying for Pell Grant funds during any
period for which they also receive grant or scholarship assistance from
non-Federal sources--including States, eligible institutions, or
private sources--that equals or exceeds their cost of attendance (COA)
for such period.
2. Workforce Pell Grants. The WFTCA allows students to receive Pell
Grants for eligible workforce programs that are 150-599 clock hours in
length or an equivalent number of credit hours and that take at least 8
weeks but less than 15 weeks of instructional time to complete (also
referred to as ``Workforce Pell Grants''). The WFTCA establishes
several other eligibility requirements for such programs, including
approval by a Governor and the Secretary, and annual outcome metrics.
1. Summary of Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action Pell Grant
Ineligibility When Other Aid Covers Full Cost
These final regulations:
<bullet> Unreserve Sec. 690.5 and add language to prohibit a
student from receiving a Pell Grant if the student received grant or
scholarship assistance from non-Federal sources that equals or exceeds
the student's COA for the award year.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.80(d) to require an eligible institution, in
such cases where a student would receive non-Federal grant or
scholarship assistance that equals or exceeds the student's COA, either
to reduce that student's non-Federal grant or scholarship assistance,
insofar as such grant or assistance is within the institution's
control, or to return all Pell Grant funds disbursed to the student for
the award year (if any funds are still undisbursed) and cancel any
future disbursements of such funds.
Workforce Pell Grants
These final regulations:
<bullet> Amend Sec. 600.10 to require the Secretary's approval of
each eligible workforce program in order to establish Pell Grant
eligibility.
<bullet> Amend Sec. 668.5 to limit the amount of an eligible
workforce program that can be offered by an ineligible institution or
organization through a written arrangement to 25 percent or less,
unless the written arrangement is part of a Registered Apprenticeship.
<bullet> Amend Sec. 668.8 to add eligible workforce programs as a
new type of Pell Grant eligible program.
<bullet> Amend Sec. 668.20 to prohibit an eligible institution
from taking into account any noncredit, remedial, or reduced credit
remedial coursework outside of required coursework (including a course
in English as a second language) when determining enrollment intensity
and COA for a student enrolled in an eligible workforce program, as
defined under 34 CFR 690.92.
<bullet> Amend Sec. 668.32 to prohibit an individual that is
enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a program that leads
[[Page 29255]]
to a graduate credential or has attained a graduate credential from
receiving a Pell Grant to enroll in an eligible workforce program.
<bullet> Add a definition of an eligible workforce program to Sec.
690.2.
<bullet> Amend Sec. 690.6 to allow an otherwise eligible student
with a bachelor's degree to receive a Pell Grant to enroll in an
eligible workforce program.
<bullet> Amend Sec. 690.11 to prohibit a student from receiving
concurrent Pell Grant awards for two or more different eligible
programs.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.90 to provide a high-level scope and purpose
of eligible workforce programs and clarify that eligible students in
these programs are only eligible to receive Pell Grants and not any
other title IV aid.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.91 to define key terms, including ``cohort
period,'' ``earnings measurement period,'' ``in-demand industry sector
or occupation,'' ``Governor,'' ``recognized postsecondary credential,''
``State board,'' and ``tuition and fees.''
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.92(a) to establish that an eligible
workforce program is an undergraduate program that is at least 8 but
less than 15 weeks of instruction.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.92(b) to establish that an eligible
workforce program is 150-599 clock hours, 4-15 semester or trimester
hours, or 6-23 quarter hours.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.92(c) to prohibit correspondence courses,
study abroad, or direct assessment in eligible workforce programs.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.92(d) to require program approval by the
Governor of a State.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.92(e) to require program approval by the
Secretary.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.92(f) to require eligible workforce programs
to pass the value-added earnings metric.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.92(g) to prevent an eligible institution
from offering an eligible workforce program if it has been subject to
any suspension or emergency or termination action by the Secretary
during the five years preceding the date of the determination.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.93(a) to codify statutory requirements for
Governor approval, including that the eligible workforce program
provides an education aligned with the requirements of high-skill,
high-wage, or in-demand industry sections or occupations, meets the
hiring needs of employers, leads to a recognized postsecondary
credential that is stackable and portable (or prepares students for
employment for which there is only one recognized postsecondary
credential), and ensures that a student receives academic credit for
the program for at least one certificate or degree program at one or
more eligible institutions.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.93(b) to require Governors to establish
written policies and processes to evaluate whether a program meets the
requirements under Sec. 690.93(a), which includes requirements for
institutions to submit the necessary information for the Governor to
assess a program's completion rate and job placement rates; involve a
process for an institution to appeal the Governor's determination; and
require the Governor to submit an attestation that the State board was
consulted when evaluating whether a program is an eligible workforce
program.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.93(c) to prohibit the Governor from
approving the program until it meets all the requirements under Sec.
690.93(a).
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.93(d) to require the Governor to provide the
Secretary with a certification, including the components outlined in
regulation, that an eligible workforce program was approved by the
Governor and meets the requirements.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.93(e) to clarify that a Governor's approval
expires with the expiration of the eligible institution's Program
Participation Agreement.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.93(f) to establish a process in which a
Governor provides a certification of continued approval of each
eligible workforce program offered by the eligible institution prior to
the expiration of an eligible institution's Program Participation
Agreement.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.93(g) to treat a program that serves as a
related instruction component of a Registered Apprenticeship Program as
meeting the requirements of providing an education aligned with high-
skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors or occupations, and
meeting the hiring needs of employers.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.93(h) to allow the Governors of two States
to enter into a bilateral agreement regarding the enrollment of
students located in one of those States into some or all the programs
located in the other State.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.94(a) to require the Secretary to approve
each program, after the Governor has approved the program. The program
must meet the conditions under Sec. 690.92(a) and (b) for the 12
months preceding the date on which the eligible institution applied for
eligibility for the program. The program must also meet completion and
job placement rates prior to application to the Department and each
year subsequent to the eligible workforce program's approval.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.94(b) to require an eligible institution to
submit to the Governor a list of students that completed the program in
each award year, provide the necessary information to verify the job
placement rate, and report the published tuition and fees for the
eligible workforce program through a process the Secretary determines.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.94(c) to allow the Secretary to waive some
or all the proposed requirements under Sec. 690.94(a) and (b) related
to submission of completion rates and the Governor's certification of
job placement rates.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.94(d) to prohibit an eligible workforce
program's tuition and fees from exceeding the value-added earnings of
the program.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.94(e) to exclude certain categories of
students from the numerator and denominator of the completion and
placement rate calculations.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.95(a) to codify the value-added earnings
process. An eligible workforce program's total published tuition and
fees may not exceed the value-added earnings of students who are
working, who received a Pell Grant for enrollment in the program, and
who completed the program during the cohort period.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.95(b) to establish that an eligible
workforce program's value-added earnings are determined by calculating
the difference between the adjusted median earnings of student
completers during the earnings measurement period as defined in Sec.
690.91 and 150 percent of the U.S. Federal Poverty Guidelines
applicable to a single individual for such tax year.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.95(c) to require the Secretary to publish
the value-added earnings that will apply to the eligible workforce
program for the upcoming award year no later than three months prior to
the beginning of the award year.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.95(d) to require that an eligible
institution keep published tuition and fees at or below the value-added
earnings calculated for the program for all students who received a
Pell Grant and first enroll in the eligible workforce program during
the award year that begins following the annual release of the
program's value-added earnings.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.95(e) to establish that programs that have a
calculated value-added earnings of zero or a negative value are not
eligible programs.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.95(f) to require an eligible institution to
provide evidence, upon request, to the Secretary that its published
tuition and fees do not exceed the published value-added earnings for
that award year.
[[Page 29256]]
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.95(g) to establish that the Secretary will
calculate the value-added earnings for an eligible workforce program
using the student completion data the eligible institution reported.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.95(h) to establish the number of students
needed for the Secretary to calculate the value-added earnings for the
program.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.95(i) to establish that the Federal agency
with earnings data will provide the Department with median annual
earnings of the students whom the Federal agency has matched with
earnings data.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.95(j) to require the Secretary to include
completers from all eligible workforce programs with the same six-digit
Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code when calculating
value-added earnings.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.95(k) to clarify that, if more than 50
percent of students in the eligible workforce program are not located
in the State in which the eligible institution offering the program is
located, the Department will not adjust the program's median earnings
by the State and metropolitan area regional price parities of the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.95(l) to exclude a student from the value-
added earnings calculation if the student was enrolled in any other
educational program during the calendar year for which the Secretary
obtains earnings information.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.96(a) to establish a process for programs
that lose eligibility. A program will become ineligible at the end of
the payment period that begins following the date that the Governor
acts to withdraw approval or the Governor fails to reapprove the
program.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.96(b) to provide that, except in limited
circumstances such as a pending appeal, a program will become
ineligible at the end of the payment period that begins after the date
that the Secretary determines that the eligible institution failed to
meet the completion rate or job placement rate requirements.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.96(c) to provide that, if an eligible
workforce program fails to meet the value-added earnings requirements,
the program will become ineligible at the beginning of the award year
following the release of the value-added earnings, and the Secretary
will assess a liability to the eligible institution.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.97(a) to establish a process for an eligible
workforce program to regain eligibility once it has lost it. This
process would prohibit an eligible institution from reestablishing the
eligibility of a failing program or establish eligibility for a
substantially similar program until two years following the date the
program loses eligibility or the date the eligible institution
voluntarily discontinues the failing eligible workforce program,
whichever date is earlier.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.97(b) to establish that, if an eligible
workforce program loses eligibility due to a loss of Governor approval,
the program may reestablish eligibility after the Secretary receives
the Governor's certification that the program has been approved, and
after the Secretary determines the program has met eligibility
criteria.
<bullet> Add Sec. 690.97(c) to allow an eligible institution to
request that a program's eligibility be reinstated if the program loses
its eligibility due to the published tuition being higher than its
value-added earnings.
2. Summary of Costs and Benefits
As further detailed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the
Department estimates that the regulations will have significant impacts
on students, educational institutions, employers, taxpayers, State
governments, and the Department.
Under the final regulations, students will benefit from expanded
access to Federal grant funds for new workforce programs that
institutions are likely to offer--or may already offer--but that were
previously ineligible for such funding. Students will also experience
higher wages due to the skills and credentials they gain by attending
eligible workforce programs, including receiving stackable credentials
that will allow them to pursue further postsecondary education and
workforce training. Employers will benefit from the final regulations
because the regulations will increase the number of skilled workers in
the labor market. Institutions will benefit from new enrollments and
the resulting tuition revenues. State governments and taxpayers will
also benefit from greater tax revenues and reduced expenditures on
public assistance programs because of the higher wages experienced by
those completing eligible workforce programs.
The Department will incur new costs to finance Pell Grants for
eligible workforce programs, which are funded as part of the existing
Pell Grant Program. The Department will incur new costs to implement
the changes to the Pell Grant Program and monitor eligibility, as will
State governments, who, if they or institutions within their State
choose to participate, must certify eligible workforce programs and
monitor their completion and job placement outcomes. While taxpayers
will bear the cost of financing Pell Grants to eligible workforce
programs, they will also benefit indirectly from the earnings gain that
Pell Grant recipients receive, such as through reduced use of public
benefits programs for low-income households.
III. Purpose of This Regulatory Action
This action establishes regulations that address statutory changes
to the HEA made by the WFTCA related to eligible workforce programs and
a new limitation on Pell Grant eligibility for students who receive
non-Federal grant or scholarship assistance that equals or exceeds
their cost of attendance. The Department refers to these provisions as
a whole as ``Workforce Pell.''
Through this action, the Secretary seeks to faithfully implement
the statutory requirements for eligible workforce programs while
limiting administrative burden for institutions and providing
flexibility for States to determine whether eligible workforce programs
are adequately serving students and promoting regional economic growth.
We also seek to provide simple and clear regulations for institutions
to implement the new limitation on Pell Grant eligibility that will
enable the Department to oversee those requirements effectively.
IV. Background
The WFTCA, which President Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025,
made important changes to the title IV, HEA programs, including one of
the most significant changes to the Pell Grant Program in its history
to address America's workforce needs.
Specifically, the WFTCA expanded Pell Grant eligibility to eligible
workforce programs. These programs are shorter in duration than the
undergraduate programs currently eligible for Pell Grants, and they
must meet specific accountability metrics related to graduate earnings,
as well as indicia of employer demand--requirements that are not
applicable to other eligible programs.
The WFTCA also added a new criterion for Pell Grant eligibility
that prevents students from receiving Pell Grant funds if they also
receive grant or scholarship aid from non-Federal sources--including
States, institutions of higher education, and private sources--in a
total amount that equals or exceeds their cost of attendance (COA).
Eligible institutions determine the COA by establishing a budget for
tuition and fees, books, supplies, housing, food, and other costs.
[[Page 29257]]
This final regulation complies with Section 492 of the HEA, which
requires the Secretary to obtain public input and conduct negotiated
rulemaking before issuing proposed regulations for the title IV, HEA
programs. To meet those requirements and implement the new statutory
directives provided for in the WFTCA, the Department convened the
Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand-driven
Workforce Pell (AHEAD) negotiated rulemaking committee, which reached
consensus agreement on the entirety of the regulatory text that was
included in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NPRM--Accountability in Higher Education and Access through
Demand-Driven Workforce Pell: Pell Grant Exclusion Relating to Other
Grant Aid; and Workforce Pell Grants--<a href="https://www.Federalregister.gov/documents/2026/03/09/2026-04520/accountability-in-higher-education-and-access-through-demand-driven-workforce-pell-pell-grant">https://www.Federalregister.gov/documents/2026/03/09/2026-04520/accountability-in-higher-education-and-access-through-demand-driven-workforce-pell-pell-grant</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEA section 482(c)(2) permits the Secretary to designate a
regulation as one that an entity subject to the regulations may choose
to implement earlier and outline the conditions for early
implementation. The Secretary is exercising her authority under HEA
section 482(c) to permit early implementation of all regulations
pertaining to eligible workforce programs beginning July 1, 2026. The
Secretary will assume that any institution that selects to participate
in Workforce Pell through a qualifying program on the ECAR between July
1, 2026, and July 20, 2026 has elected to implement the provisions
early.
V. Authority for This Regulatory Action
The WFTCA amended portions of the HEA related to the title IV, HEA
programs administered by the Department. The Secretary has been granted
broad authority by Congress to implement Federal student aid programs
under title IV of the HEA, including amendments made by the WFTCA. See
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, see also 20 U.S.C. 1082, 3441, 3471, 3474. In order
to carry out functions otherwise vested in the Secretary by law or by
delegation of authority pursuant to law, and subject to limitations as
may be otherwise imposed by law, the Secretary is authorized to make,
promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing
the manner of operations of, and governing the applicable programs
administered by, the Department. See 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3. These programs
include the Federal student financial assistance programs authorized by
the HEA, as amended by the WFTCA.
Waiver of HEA Master Calendar Requirements
The Harmonious-Reading Canon provides that statutes should, when
possible, be interpreted in a way that renders them compatible, not
contradictory, but such an approach is not always possible if context
and other considerations (including the application of other canons)
make it impossible to do so, another approach to statutory
interpretation, such as the General/Specific Canon must be applied. See
Scalia & Garner, Reading Law, 155 (2012). The General/Specific Canon of
statutory construction dictates that, in cases where a general
prohibition is contradicted by a specific permission or a general
permission that is contradicted by a specific prohibition, the more
specific of the two provisions controls. See Scalia & Garner, Reading
Law, 158 (2012). Because, as discussed below, the WFTCA contains
provisions with effective dates that cannot possibly be implemented in
regulation in accordance with the HEA's master calendar requirements,
the WFTCA implicitly provides a limited waiver of the HEA's master
calendar requirement, so far as it is necessary to promulgate
regulations that give effect to those provisions. See Dorsey v. United
States, 567 U.S. 260, 274 (2012) (stating that an agency's compliance
with an existing statute ``cannot justify a disregard of the will of
Congress as manifested either expressly or by necessary implication in
a subsequent enactment'' (quoting Great Northern R. Co. v. United
States, 208 U.S. 452, 465 (1908)).
Here, the WFTCA was enacted on July 4, 2025. The WFTCA directs the
Department to implement roughly a dozen provisions by July 1, 2026.
Many of these provisions are not self-executing and could not be
implemented absent the Department promulgating regulations to provide
details for institutions on how to comply with the WFTCA. Congress gave
the Secretary discretion within the WFTCA to implement the provisions
impacting the title IV, HEA programs and knew that its commands were
not self-executing when directing the Secretary to take action.
Congress expected the Secretary to act via rulemaking before July 1,
2026, to enable these provisions to actually go into effect.
The master calendar in the HEA provides that regulatory changes
initiated by the Secretary affecting the title IV, HEA programs must be
published in final form by November 1st in order for them to go into
effect by July 1st of the following year. 20 U.S.C. 1089(c)(1). Section
492 of the HEA requires the Department to undertake negotiated
rulemaking as part of any regulation under title IV of the HEA. In
order to conduct negotiated rulemaking and meet Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) requirements, the Department must have a public
hearing (providing notice to the public), solicit nominations from the
public to serve on a negotiated rulemaking committee, select non-
Federal negotiators, hold negotiations, develop an NPRM, publish an
NPRM (with at least a 30-day comment period), and then publish a final
rule that responds to any substantive comments received. The fastest
possible timeframe in which the negotiated rulemaking process for the
rulemaking packages assigned to the AHEAD Committee could have occurred
is 149 days, which is irreconcilable with the timeline allowed by the
enactment of the WFTCA, due to the fact that there were 120 days
between July 4, 2025, (the day the WFTCA was enacted), and November 1,
2025 (the publication date of the final rule required by the master
calendar).
It would not have been possible for the Department to undertake
every step of the negotiated rulemaking process by November 1, 2025, in
order to implement the provisions that become effective in the WFTCA by
July 1, 2026, which is the statutory effective date. Congress was aware
of this temporal impossibility when they passed the WFTCA, yet Congress
decided that these provisions would still go into effect on July 1,
2026. Because these provisions are not self-implementing and cannot go
into effect unless the Department promulgates a final rule, the WFTCA
implicitly waives the master calendar.
With important details unanswered by the plain text of the WFTCA,
it is clear that the policy scheme set forth in the HEA made by the
WFTCA cannot be implemented absent regulatory action by the Department.
At the same time, even though the requirements of negotiated rulemaking
are onerous, it is possible to undergo negotiated rulemaking and
publish a final rule at least 30 days prior to the effective date of
these WFTCA provisions on July 1, 2026. Therefore, the WFTCA does not
waive negotiated rulemaking nor any provision in the APA. For
provisions in the WFTCA that become effective July 1, 2027, and beyond,
Congress did not implicitly repeal the master calendar because it is
possible for the Department to publish a final rule that complies with
the master calendar to implement those provisions.
[[Page 29258]]
Severability
``It is axiomatic'' that a regulation may be invalid in part but
not in whole or as applied to one set of facts but not another. Ayotte
v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England, 546 U.S. 320, 329 (2006). If a
court finds one part of a regulation is unlawful, the ``normal rule''
is to enjoin only that part. Id. (quoting Brockett v. Spokane Arcades,
Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 504 (1985)).
It is the Department's intent that if any provision of this subpart
or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the
remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any
person, act, or practice shall not be affected thereby.
Statutes and regulations are severable if the separate provisions
are ``wholly independent of each other'' and can operate independently.
Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 502 (1985). That is
the case here. No part herein will be affected if another part is found
to be unlawful. Nor does the Department believe courts or regulated
parties would be unable to apply the rule if one part is held invalid.
C.f. Dep't of Educ. v. Louisiana, 603 U.S. 866, 868 (2024) (per curiam)
(denying the government's request to stay a preliminary injunction
against an entire rule where only parts were found to be invalid
because ``schools would face in determining how to apply the rule for a
temporary period with some provisions in effect and some enjoined'').
VI. Analysis of Public Comment and Changes
On March 9, 2026, the Secretary published an NPRM for these
regulations in the Federal Register (91 FR 11378). The Department
received 440 comments on the proposed regulations.
The Department has grouped the comments by the regulatory section
and by similar themes. We discuss substantive issues under the sections
of the regulations to which they pertain. In instances where individual
submissions appeared to be duplicates or near duplicates of comments
prepared as part of a write-in campaign, the Department posted one
representative sample comment along with the total comment count for
that campaign to <a href="http://www.Regulations.gov">www.Regulations.gov</a>. We considered these comments
along with all the other comments received. In instances where
individual submissions were bundled together (submitted as a single
document or packaged together), the Department posted all the
substantive comments included in the submissions along with the total
comment count for that document or package to <a href="http://www.Regulations.gov">www.Regulations.gov</a>.
Generally, we do not address minor, non-substantive changes (such as
renumbering paragraphs, adding a word, or typographical errors) within
this final rule.
1. Process for Out-of-Scope Comments
The Department does not typically address comments that are out of
scope. For purposes of this final rule, out-of-scope comments are those
that are not addressed in the NPRM altogether. Generally, comments that
are outside of the scope of the NPRM are comments that do not discuss
the content or impact of the proposed regulations or the Department's
evidence or reasons for the proposed regulations.
2. Public Comments
Responses to Comments Received on Directed Questions Written
Arrangements To Provide Educational Programs (Sec. 668.5(c))
In the NPRM, the Department proposed to permit ineligible
organizations to provide only 25 percent of an eligible workforce
program under the written arrangement regulations under Sec. 668.5(c).
For other programs, ineligible organizations may offer up to 50 percent
of a program through a written arrangement with an eligible
institution. This may only occur if the ineligible organization and
institution meet certain conditions and the institution's accrediting
agency has specifically determined that the institution's arrangement
meets the agency's standards on written arrangements with ineligible
organizations. The Department sought public comment regarding whether
it should consider alternatives to the 25 percent limit.
Comments: Several commenters agreed with the Department's proposed
limitation on written arrangements with ineligible institutions or
organizations. One commenter expressed support for the Department's
conservative approach while it awaits additional information in public
comments. Other commenters stated that some institutions have
outsourced large portions of academic programs to the online program
management (OPM) industry. OPMs provide services including student
recruitment, curriculum development, and even instruction, in the name
of client institutions. The commenter stated that OPMs fail consumer
protection standards, market aggressively, and target vulnerable
students. The commenter stated that accreditors lack the capacity to
effectively monitor OPMs.
Other commenters stated that eligible workforce programs should
only be able to have written arrangements with ineligible institutions
for between 0-10 percent of the eligible workforce program. Several
commenters believed that because local and area employers are the
intended beneficiaries of trained skilled workers, they should not also
profit from tuition revenue derived from written arrangements with
institutions. The commenters believed that for-profit companies in
education and workforce development are known for higher prices and
costs, lower quality and learner experiences, lower completion rates,
and more student complaints.
Discussion: The Department thanks commenters who provided views on
its directed question, including commenters who support its proposed
regulations. However, the Department's views do not align with all the
reasons stated for agreement with the provision. We reiterate that we
recognize the potential value in partnerships between eligible
institutions and certain ineligible organizations, such as employers
and unions or non-title IV eligible Registered Apprenticeship related
training instruction providers, that result in the enhanced quality of
eligible workforce programs. We also do not agree that ineligible
organizations should be limited to providing only a tiny fraction of
the program, such as 10 percent, particularly in this context where
employers should play a large role. Such an amount would be so small as
to be used infrequently, if ever, by outside entities seeking to enter
into an arrangement with an institution. The existing 25 percent
threshold is well-understood by institutions and would be consistent
with the basic threshold for other types of postsecondary programs.
Our concern is that the 49 percent allowance does not provide the
same level of quality assurance for eligible workforce programs as it
does for traditional academic programs, given the broad lack of
experience in the accreditation industry in evaluating agreements for
short-term programs. Moreover, the Department is concerned that the
provision of eligible workforce programs by ineligible institutions and
organizations could rapidly expand far beyond the intent of the
statute. The Department's regulations seek to achieve a balance between
supporting valuable partnerships between industry and higher education
to provide eligible workforce programs and prevent the rapid
proliferation of low-quality programs that are not assessed carefully
[[Page 29259]]
by the traditional gatekeepers of eligibility for title IV, HEA funds.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters stated that the proposed 25 percent
limitation on instruction delivered through written arrangements with
ineligible institutions or organizations unnecessarily restricts
partnerships between eligible institutions and workforce training
providers where much of the applied learning occurs. Several commenters
offered the example of truck driving and the commercial driver's
license (CDL) process, explaining that the CDL process often includes
access to equipment, certified instructors, and training facilities
that institutions cannot provide independently. Commenters also stated
that careers in healthcare, construction, defense, national security,
and office operations often require a significant amount of applied
learning. For example, in the arboriculture industry, training is
offered related to climbing systems, aerial lift operations, chainsaw
safety, arboricultural practices, and electrical hazard awareness.
Many commenters also stated that the 25 percent cap is not required
by statute and asserted that the Department is holding eligible
workforce programs to a different standard than all other title IV, HEA
eligible programs. Commenters recommended a broad range of options for
the percentage of an eligible program that can be offered by an
ineligible entity, ranging from 35-100 percent. Other commenters
conditioned arrangements between 30-75 percent depending on how high-
wage, high-skill, or in-demand the occupation is. They also recommended
conditioning based on whether the institution offering the eligible
workforce program was in good standing with the Department, the
geographic location of the institution, if the ineligible organization
is the employer for which the program prepares students, the program
trains in artificial intelligence, if the program is in a correctional
facility, if the program is endorsed by the State board, if the program
partners with cohort-based workforce training organizations, and the
accrediting agency's support for the program.
Several commenters recommended that the Department permit greater
portions of programs to be offered by an ineligible entity through a
written arrangement. These commenters suggested that if a program is
part of a Registered Apprenticeship, the ineligible entity should be
permitted to offer up to 100 percent of an eligible program.
Discussion: The Department is persuaded by the commenters that
written arrangements with certain types of ineligible organizations
should not be limited to providing only 25 percent of an eligible
workforce program. The commenters make a strong case that certain
arrangements and partnerships can greatly improve the likelihood that
eligible workforce programs will lead to high-wage, high-skill, or in-
demand jobs.
In the case of Registered Apprenticeships, we are also persuaded by
commenters that the requirements and oversight for these industry-
driven, high quality career pathways address the Department's concerns
about quality assurance of services provided under written
arrangements. We agree with the commenters who stated that Registered
Apprenticeships already have a framework for oversight, clear
definitions, and rigorous program parameters. The Department's proposed
regulations, agreed upon by the entire negotiated rulemaking committee,
already included a provision that acknowledges quality assurance checks
intrinsic to Registered Apprenticeships. Registered Apprenticeships
include a work process schedule co-designed with employers and approved
by DOL's Office of Apprenticeship or a State Apprenticeship Agency and
WIOA permits Registered Apprenticeships to be automatically included on
the State and local Eligible Training Provider Lists. Indeed, for this
reason, the Department already proposed regulations under Sec.
690.93(g) that would allow a Governor to treat a program that is part
of a Registered Apprenticeship as automatically meeting the hiring
needs of employers.
However, the Department disagrees with commenters' assertion that
written arrangements should be used to provide 50 percent or more of an
eligible program. In order to participate in the title IV, HEA
programs, an entity must meet the definition of institution of higher
education under Section 101 or Section 102 of the Higher Education
Act.\2\ There are different types of institutions of higher education
under these provision, but all institutions must ``provide [ ] an
educational program'' \3\ or provide a ``program of training'' \4\ to
students. And in all these instances, the subject the statute is
referring to is the institution--meaning the institution must provide
the program or training to students. If the eligible institution enters
into a contract that calls for 100 percent of the program or training
to be provided by an ineligible third-party, the institution itself is
not providing the training or program as required by Section 102. And
as we have said in past regulations, ``[t]he Department agrees that
using written arrangements for all or nearly all of a program could
raise questions about which entity confers the credential.'' \5\ The
Department has previously explored the possibility of allowing an
ineligible entity to offer up to 100 percent of a program through a
written arrangement, most recently in the September 2, 2020,
regulations related to Distance Education and Innovation. However, the
Department ultimately agreed with non-Federal negotiators that doing so
would raise the question of whether the eligible institution was really
offering the program, as opposed to an unaccredited partner entity.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Section 102 of the HEA includes institutions of higher
education that are covered under Section 101. (``the term
``institution of higher education'' for purposes of subchapter IV
includes, in addition to the institutions covered by the definition
in section 1001 of this title. . .'') 20 U.S.C. 1001-1002.
\3\ 20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(3)
\4\ 20 U.S.C. 1001(b)(1); 1002(b)(1); 1002(c)(1).
\5\ Distance Education and Innovation, 85 FR 54742, 54772 (Sept.
2, 2020).
\6\ See 85 FR 54804.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, the Department does not believe that Congress
implicitly meant to (within Section 102) inhibit an institution from
entering into written arrangements to provide some portion of the
program or training. Some functions of the program and training can be
provided by third parties as demonstrated by the current existence of
written arrangements in other programs qualifying for title IV, HEA
program funds. This may include written arrangements to provide
technological services to students, or specialized training for
students that the institution does not have the experience or ability
to provide.
The Department believes that when at least half the program or
training is provided by an ineligible provider, that the eligible
institution ceases to functionally control most of the program. When 50
percent or more of the training is being provided by an ineligible
entity, the institution ceases to offer the majority of the
programming. The Department acknowledges that maintaining written
arrangements for more than 50 percent of a program does not mean the
institution is ceding all control to the ineligible provider. But at
the same time, supervision alone is not enough. The HEA requires the
institution to provide the training or program, not the ineligible
provider. Written arrangements cannot be used as an end-around to evade
the requirements of the
[[Page 29260]]
HEA that institutions provide the training or program.
Given all of the above, the Department has determined that
ineligible institutions or organizations that provide training as part
of Registered Apprenticeships should not be subject to the strict 25
percent limitation on providing an eligible workforce program. Instead,
in these circumstances, ineligible institutions or organizations will
be permitted to provide more than 25 percent, but less than 50 percent
through a written arrangement. For all other fields of study and
program types mentioned by the commenters, the Department remains
concerned that allowing institutions to contract up to 49 percent of
the eligible workforce program may be an indication that the
institution does not have the capacity to offer the program fully had
that written arrangement not been in place. The recommendations from
other commenters, while in some cases providing a good rationale for
the value of institution/employer partnerships, did not sufficiently
address these concerns. Therefore, aside from the allowances we are
providing for Registered Apprenticeships, we believe that this
limitation is effective in assuring the quality of eligible workforce
programs.
Changes: The Department has rewritten the regulations under 34 CFR
668.5(c)(3)(ii) to add a new paragraph (D) following paragraphs (A)
through (C) in the current regulations. The new paragraph (D) would
allow an ineligible institution or organization, if the other
conditions in 34 CFR 668.5(c) were met, to offer more than 25 percent,
but less than 50 percent of an eligible workforce program, if the
program qualifies as a related instruction component for a Registered
Apprenticeship, as defined in 29 CFR part 29.
Comments: Several commenters asked for guidance clarifying how the
written arrangement percentage is calculated across instruction,
curriculum, and support services.
Discussion: The regulations under 34 CFR 668.5(g) provide a clear
and specific method for calculating the percentage of a program that is
offered by an ineligible organization or institution. To determine that
percentage, an institution must divide the number of semester,
trimester, or quarter credit hours, clock hours, or the equivalent that
is provided by the ineligible organization or organizations by the
total number of semester, trimester, or quarter credit hours, clock
hours, or the equivalent required for completion of the program. A
course is provided by an ineligible institution or organization if the
organization with which the institution has a written arrangement has
authority over the design, administration, or instruction in the
course, including, but not limited to--
(1) Establishing the requirements for successful completion of the
course;
(2) Delivering instruction in the course; or
(3) Assessing student learning.
For more information on written arrangements please see the most
recent version of the Federal Student Aid Handbook that discusses
written arrangements.
In reviewing public comments on this topic, the Department noticed
that some commenters may be confused about the extent of the limitation
on the amount of a program that can be offered by an ineligible
institution or organization under 34 CFR 668.5(c). If a program that is
eligible for title IV, HEA funds is combined with job training as part
of a broader training experience, such as an apprenticeship, only the
portion of the experience that comprises an eligible workforce program
and qualifies a student for Pell Grant funds is subject to the
limitation. Hours spent on job training that is not part of the
eligible workforce program, and therefore does not qualify for Pell
Grant funds, are not subject to any limitations.
For example, one commenter, arguing for an increase in the
allowable percentage, indicated that related instruction in their
Registered Apprenticeship program occurs at the beginning and is
provided entirely by the institution, with the remaining job training
conducted by other entities, including employers. In that situation,
using the criteria described above, the Department would view the
program as being provided entirely by the institution, and not subject
to the written arrangement limitations.
Changes: None.
Ineligibility Due to Non-Federal Grant or Scholarship Assistance (Sec.
690.5)
The Department proposed to add language to prohibit a student from
receiving a Pell Grant if the student received grant or scholarship
assistance from non-Federal sources that equals or exceeds the
student's COA for the award year. The proposed regulatory language was
very similar to the statutory language. In the NPRM, the Department
expressed concern about the potential for abuse of this provision,
particularly when an institution has the ability to alter institutional
aid or a student's cost of attendance by a very small amount in order
to avoid causing the student to become ineligible for Pell Grant funds.
The Department sought public comments about potential options to
prevent such gaming, including oversight mechanisms.
Comments: Many commenters stated that the Department's regulations,
which mirrored the statute, should not be altered, including to prevent
gaming or abuse of the provision. Other commenters appeared to be
confused by the provision, and a large number of questions were
submitted. These commenters believed that the provision would unfairly
limit a student's aid such that the student would no longer be able to
receive a Pell Grant if the student received any amount of grant or
scholarship assistance, as opposed to only losing Pell Grant
eligibility for the award year. Two commenters were concerned that if
the Department were to implement a new oversight mechanism to prevent
gaming that it could impose burden on institutions and students. They
suggested that it would be sufficiently cautionary to affirm that
professional judgment (PJ) adjustments to COA must meet existing case-
by-case documentation standards under the HEA and that the Department
considers such adjustments during program reviews.
One commenter concluded that institutions using PJ to boost COA by
a small amount was less likely to occur than simply reducing
institutional or other aid by a small amount. They noted that in cases
of PJ, the statutory documentation standards govern such decisions,
which can be easily audited. They suggested that the Department
consider using available student aid data to identify institutions that
appear to be systematically tailoring non-Federal aid to be within $50
(or some other small amount) of meeting COA. The commenter stated that
the Department could also require institutions to document the
methodologies used to determine non-Federal aid and then conduct risk-
based audits of institutions that appear to use gaming practices.
Discussion: The Department stated in the NPRM, and we reiterate
here, that if a student's entire COA for an award year is met with non-
Federal grant or scholarship aid, that student is not eligible for a
Pell Grant for that award year. However, the student would retain Pell
Grant eligibility for subsequent award years if the student has
remaining lifetime eligibility.
The Department disagrees with commenters who argued that additional
oversight of this provision is not warranted. Although we agree that
the provision will only affect a small
[[Page 29261]]
number of individuals, it is the Department's responsibility to ensure
the integrity of the title IV, HEA programs, including all statutory
requirements.
We appreciate the suggestions from commenters regarding ways that
the Department could evaluate implementation of this provision using
administrative data or other oversight tools. The Department plans to
establish an oversight process to identify cases in which institutions
are abusing the provision and will take commenters' suggestions into
account as it does so.
Unfortunately, commenters were unable to offer suggestions for
regulatory changes that could prevent or reduce the likelihood of
abuse, and the Department continues to interpret the statutory language
as not expansive enough to allow the Department to limit a student's
Pell Grant eligibility to the student's COA minus the total amount of
the student's non-Federal grant aid. Therefore, we have made no changes
to this regulatory language, but, as described above, we will develop
oversight procedures to monitor its implementation at postsecondary
institutions.
Changes: None.
Components Determined by Governors: Bilateral Agreements (Sec.
690.93(h))
The Department proposed during negotiated rulemaking to allow two
Governors to enter into a bilateral agreement for an eligible
institution in one State to offer an eligible workforce program to
students in another State through distance education so that students
may use Pell Grant funds to attend a program located in another State.
Bilateral agreements allow the Governors of two States to determine
that an eligible workforce program meets the workforce needs of both
States while also preventing the rapid proliferation of such programs
among States where the program's training is not as valuable. The
Department included a directed question about how to balance its
concerns without making it overly burdensome to create and expand high-
quality programs.
Comments: A few commenters agreed with the Department's proposal
because a multilateral approach risks allowing programs to operate in
States where they offer limited workforce value, undermining the
program's foundational purpose. The core eligibility criteria for
eligible workforce programs--alignment with high-skill, high-wage, or
in-demand occupations; meeting the hiring needs of employers; and
preparing students for a stackable credential--are inherently local
determinations that reflect State-specific labor market conditions. The
commenters asserted that bilateral agreements ensure that a State
Governor executes a meaningful check that a given program meets that
State's workforce needs.
Discussion: The Department agrees and thanks the commenters for
their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters disagreed with the Department's
prohibition of multi-lateral agreements. Commenters believed that
guardrails already exist through current reciprocity frameworks and
this prohibition is applied unnecessarily to eligible workforce
programs. One commenter stated that the Department created a policy
separate from the realities of budgets and staffing, and the WFTCA
offered no new resources to States to build or operate the Department's
proposed framework for bilateral agreements to offer eligible workforce
programs to students located in other States. The commenter recommended
that the Department partner with State authorization experts, consider
a separate rulemaking, delay this component of the regulations, bundle
it into a future rulemaking session, and rely on NC-SARA in the
meantime.
Several other comments stated Governors should be given discretion
to determine the most effective structure for interstate agreements to
meet the needs of their States. They asserted that bilateral agreements
are unnecessarily limiting, in part because State boundaries do not
neatly align with or adequately capture the nuances of workforce needs.
The commenters argued that a bilateral agreement structure risks
imposing additional layers of bureaucracy that could stifle innovation
and limit opportunities for students.
Some other commenters offered alternatives, such as allowing
multilateral agreements that have documented success, offering national
portable credentials, allowing multilateral agreements for programs in
national defense training or programs that have high-demand sector
placements, automatically allowing multilateral agreements after three
years after the program was approved, automatically allowing
multilateral agreements after 2029, or allowing multilateral agreements
between institutions that are within a specific region of the United
States. Another commenter requested that the Department create and
manage a multilateral eligible workforce program reciprocity agreement.
Discussion: As explained in the NPRM, the Department has concerns
regarding the potential for rapid proliferation of eligible workforce
programs offered through distance education (Sec. 600.2) and the need
for appropriate safeguards. The NC-SARA framework, in which a non-
governmental organization oversees multi-lateral agreements among many
States, does not currently provide adequate safeguards to prevent this
kind of rapid expansion, particularly given the potential for eligible
workforce programs to be offered to students in States where the
training is not needed for the regional economy. Eligible workforce
programs are unique in that the Governor must certify that the program
provides an education aligned with the requirements of high-skill,
high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors or occupations and that the
program meets the hiring requirements of potential employers in the
sectors or occupations. Under currently established multilateral
agreements for State authorization generally, an institution based in
one State could offer an eligible workforce program through distance
education to an individual residing in a State with completing
different needs. For example, in-demand sectors or occupations in
Alaska may be different from in-demand sectors or occupations in Puerto
Rico. Students should not exhaust their limited Pell Grant funds on
programs that will not result in entry into the workforce in a field in
which the program was preparing them. Bilateral agreements are
necessary to ensure that a Governor has reviewed and certified eligible
workforce programs offered to students through distance education in
different States.
The commenters also did not sufficiently address the Department's
primary concerns related to inter-State offerings of eligible workforce
programs; i.e., the fact that the law requires each State to make a
determination about whether a program meets the job training needs of
the regional economy, and an agreement like NC-SARA--even if provided
only for a particular industry--would not obligate each State to make
that determination. Likewise, the Department generally cannot develop
and manage a model like NC-SARA; because nothing in the WFTCA would
permit such a framework and would therefore be an overreach of the
Department's authority.
Nothing in this rule prohibits State Governors from entering into
bilateral agreements with numerous other States. We believe that
bilateral agreements are a reasonable undertaking and the
[[Page 29262]]
burden associated with establishing such agreements has value of its
own, improving the likelihood that the programs qualifying for Pell
Grant funds are in high-skill, high-wage, and in-demand sectors or
occupations. Additionally, once established, the bilateral agreements
may be maintained indefinitely, so long as the States continue to agree
that the programs meet the statutory and regulatory requirements. This
would allow industries, such as defense, to work within that framework
as long as necessary.
We decline the commenters' recommendations to delay implementation
of these provisions. The WFTCA has a statutorily mandated effective
date for eligible workforce programs of July 1, 2026. We are unable to
postpone the specific regulations surrounding bilateral agreements, as
we do not have the authority to do so.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked whether programs approved in one
State may receive reciprocal recognition in partner States.
Discussion: Programs approved in one State do not automatically
receive reciprocal recognition in partner States and may only receive
such recognition if a bilateral agreement also exists between Governors
of each State. In order for an institution to establish eligibility for
title IV, HEA funds for a student located in another State enrolled
through distance education, the Governors of both States need to
fulfill all the requirements described in Sec. 690.93(h).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department publish a
public-facing registry of Governor-approved programs under bilateral
agreements searchable by State, occupation, and credential type.
Discussion: The Department declines to regulate itself by
establishing a requirement to publish Governor-approved programs, in
particular because it will not have information about these programs
prior to an application to the Department for the program to become
eligible for title IV, HEA funds. However, we will consider publishing
a list of eligible workforce programs that includes the States where
they are located. Under Sec. 690.93(h), the rule already requires
Governors to publicly publish bilateral agreements.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters were opposed to bilateral or
multilateral agreements. One commenter stated that the WFTCA requires
States to play an active role in assessing programs in the higher
education sector to safeguard critical student financial aid and ensure
the goals of the Workforce Pell Grant program are met. Commenters
stated that allowing bilateral agreements risks dilution of local
labor-market relevance and that the WFTCA neither contemplates nor
provides exceptions to the general rule that Governors must assess
labor markets and workforce programs in their States.
Discussion: The Department does not believe that the bilateral
framework will dilute local labor-markets. The Department was very
intentional in requiring that Governor of the State determine that the
program being offered through distance education to individuals in his
or her State meets applicable criteria under Sec. 690.93(a) prior to
certifying the program under a bilateral agreement.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter was concerned that Governors may refuse to
enter into an agreement with another State based on political or
ideological disagreements. The commenter suggested limiting
discretionary denial based on non-objective criteria.
Discussion: Governors have authority and autonomy regarding whether
to enter into a bilateral agreement with the Governor of another State.
The Department believes this is the clearest reading of the statute and
necessarily means that States can use a variety of criteria to decide
whether to enter into a bilateral agreement with another State and does
not intend to limit discretionary denial in this way.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter was concerned that institutions will try
and game completion rates through selective enrollment. Institutions
could improve completion rates by refusing to enroll students who may
be most likely to drop out, concentrating enrollment make-up to the
most academically motivated students while turning away the most
economically vulnerable applicants. The commenter was also concerned
that job placement rates could be gamed through temporary employment.
The commenter demanded that bilateral agreement programs be subject to
the job placement rate requirements of the State where the student is
located, not the State where the institution is located.
Discussion: The Department declines to accommodate the commenter's
demand. We have included a provision under Sec. 690.93(h)(3) that
states ``[t]he bilateral agreement includes provisions for data-sharing
among the States for purposes of completion and placement rate
calculations''. The Department intends to release sub regulatory
guidance containing more specifics how the completion and job placement
rates are calculated for States with bilateral agreements and believes
this guidance will prevent institutions from `gaming' this provision.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that the Department should require
that bilateral agreements be time-limited and subject to regular
renewal, with the renewal process requiring updated labor market data
demonstrating the program's continued relevance.
Discussion: Eligible workforce programs approved under a bilateral
agreement are still subject to Sec. 690.93 (e), which states that the
Governor's approval expires at the expiration of the institution's
Program Participation Agreement and Sec. 690.93 (f), which says prior
to the expiration of an institution's Program Participation Agreement,
the Governor must provide, through a process determined by the
Secretary, a certification of continued approval of each eligible
workforce program offered by the institution. Therefore, the Department
believes the commenter's concern is already addressed through the
regulations.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that any bilateral agreement should
require the receiving State's Governor to independently verify and
clearly justify that the program aligns with that State's labor market
needs, rather than simply accepting the originating State's
determination.
Discussion: We decline the commenter's recommendation because such
requirement is already established under Sec. 690.93(h)(1).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that bilateral agreements should
include specific consumer protections for distance education students,
including requirements that institutions clearly disclose to students
whether the program is designed for the labor market in the originating
State, provide information about job placement rates and earnings
outcomes disaggregated by the State in which students are located, and
disclose any additional anticipated costs to students.
Discussion: We decline the commenter's recommendation because
programs included in a bilateral agreement are subject to all the
outcomes measures, including job placement, completion, and value-added
earnings. Given that all of these measures already exist, and because
the bilateral agreement requirements are already specifically designed
to protect
[[Page 29263]]
students enrolled in distance education programs, the Department does
not believe that the value associated with making such disclosures
merits the additional burden on States that such a requirement would
impose.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that Department should explicitly
prohibit multilateral agreements and ensure that the bilateral
framework cannot be used as a backdoor to the nationwide proliferation
of Workforce Pell-eligible distance education programs that lack any
connection to State and local labor markets.
Discussion: Multilateral agreements are prohibited under this
regulation. The Department believes that regulatory requirements
ensuring that the Governor of each State that is part of a bilateral
agreement has considered the occupation(s) or sector(s) on their
State's list of areas that are high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand
prevent the rapid proliferation of low-quality programs that do not
meet labor needs in each State where the agreement applies.
Changes: None.
Value-Added Earnings: Interim Value-Added Earnings Metric (Sec.
690.95(a))
The Department sought feedback from commenters on whether an
interim value-added earnings metric should be computed. We requested
feedback on whether this was necessary to at the very least, make those
applying for workforce programs aware of the potential earnings
outcomes. The Department also requested comments on whether an eligible
institution's workforce programs should be held accountable in any way
to said interim earnings metric prior to the official calculation of
the value-added earnings metric.
Comments: Several commenters recommended that the Department not
adopt an interim value-added earnings metric. They noted that most
eligible workforce programs will need time to refine implementation
after the program is launched. The commenters did not believe there
would be an appropriate interim metric that would be both meaningful
and readily attainable for institutions or States during the program's
early years.
One commenter stated that the Department should only go as far as
developing an optional, nonbinding advisory tool or framework.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenters that
establishing a value-added earnings framework during the initial
several years of implementation of these provisions is not feasible and
would not provide an appropriate evaluation of the program's
effectiveness or outcomes. We do not intend to establish a framework
for an optional advisory process, although such an optional framework
would be permitted if States or other non-Federal entities wish to
establish such a process.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department adopt an
interim methodology for prison education programs because eligible
workforce programs that enroll confined or incarcerated students
beginning in 2026-27 will operate without any accountability benchmark
until 2030-31. They noted this would create a four-year window during
which programs with poor earnings outcomes could expand substantially
at Pell Grant expense.
Discussion: The Department declines to create different interim
calculations for specific programs, in this case, prison education
programs. The administration of a separate calculation would be overly
burdensome for both the Department and prison education programs. Note
that, in order for a confined or incarcerated individual to receive a
Pell Grant, the individual must be enrolled in a prison education
program (PEP). A PEP has its own regulatory framework in 34 CFR 668
Subpart P. This includes approval by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or
State Department of Corrections and a best interest determination that
must be concluded prior to the expiration of each postsecondary
institution's program participation agreement. A PEP that is an
eligible workforce program will need to comply with all the regulations
under 34 CFR 668 Subpart P and 34 CFR 690 Subpart H. Therefore, there
will be sufficient accountability for such program, even in the absence
of an interim value-added earnings calculation.
Changes: None.
Comments: Under Sec. 690.93(d)(9) the Department requires a
Governor to take into consideration the cost of the program and the
anticipated wages of the industry or occupation prior to the initial
determination of the program's value-added earnings. One commenter
stated that, given that States are already required to take such costs
into consideration, the Department should require a Governor
certification under Sec. 690.93(d)(9) to include a published
comparison of program tuition to median entry-level wages for the
occupations the program prepares students for, using Bureau of Labor
Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) data or
equivalent State data sources. The commenter asserted that this
comparison should be made publicly available alongside the Governor's
certification and updated annually.
Discussion: The Department declines to adopt the commenter's
suggestion to require Governors to publish the evaluation under Sec.
690.93(d)(9) publicly. The value-added earnings calculation is
standardized across all eligible workforce programs, however, the
Governor's review of eligible workforce programs prior to the 2030-31
award year is not standardized; each Governor will review eligible
workforce programs in accordance with their own established standards
and available data. Until the value-added earnings metric is calculated
for the first time in 2030-31, we are extending as much flexibility to
Governors as possible.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters stated that the Department should
encourage States to calculate interim value-added earnings for each
eligible workforce program. Commenters said that the interim
calculation should not affect Pell Grant eligibility.
One commenter noted that a data source that could be used for an
interim value-added earnings calculation is State unemployment
insurance (UI) systems. The commenter also stated that the Department
should explore other sources of administrative data that may be able to
produce interim value-added earnings estimates, such as the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) or the Post-Secondary Employment Outcomes (PSEO)
data system. A separate commenter noted that, as an already existing
data source, the interim calculations should be published in the
College Scorecard.
A few other commenters encouraged the Department to create a
standardized interim value-added earnings metric that requires eligible
workforce programs to demonstrate their economic value to students
before the full implementation of the value-added earnings calculation.
Additionally, the Department should collect such data and make it
publicly available at least annually, so that students, taxpayers, and
researchers can access pertinent information on program approvals,
earnings, and State interpretations of ``high-skill, high-wage, or in-
demand'' occupations. The commenters additionally encouraged the
Department to require States to submit proposals outlining how they
plan to ensure compliance with the value-added earnings metric between
July 1, 2026, and the 2030-31 award year, taking into account the data
sources available to
[[Page 29264]]
them in their respective contexts. They believed these plans should
include measures of program earnings at least annually, with directions
on how the data are to be collected and incorporated into the State-
level approval process. They further noted that the Department should
require States to share plans for increasing their data capacity to be
in full compliance with the value-added earnings metric by the end of
the three-year interim period.
Discussion: We encourage States to calculate an interim value-added
earnings metric using available administrative data, including but not
limited to data available in State UI tax systems. If a Governor
chooses to formally calculate interim value-added earnings, we also
encourage that the result be published publicly. Only Governors have
sufficient information to determine if their administrative data is
sufficient to provide accurate, comprehensive information to consumers
regarding interim outcomes for these programs.
Passing or failing such an interim metric would not affect Pell
Grant eligibility for the eligible workforce program, but it would
demonstrate to the Governor, institutions, and students whether the
program is assisting completers in obtaining employment in high-wage
fields or occupations. Interim calculations done by the Governor will
not be submitted to the Department; therefore, it is unlikely that IRS
or PSEO data can be used or publicly published. Use of Federal data
would likely require a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to be ratified
between the Department and the Department of Treasury or Census Bureau.
Because the Department does not have the authority to require an
interim value-added earnings calculation, and the Department does not
know how many Governors will seek to create an interim value-added
earnings calculation, nor how many would wish to rely on Federal data
for those calculations, the Department believes that it would be
impractical to commit to working with another Federal agency to furnish
such data.
In the proposed and final regulations, we believe that we have
sufficiently mitigated the downsides of the necessary delay of the
value-added earnings calculation by requiring a Governor to certify
that he or she will take into consideration the cost of the program and
the anticipated wages of the industry or occupation prior to when the
initial determination of the program's value-adding earnings is made
under 34 CFR 690.95. This requirement was specifically added at the
request of non-Federal negotiators in acknowledgement of the period
when a program would not be assessed using the value-added earnings
metric. Finally, as an additional measure to improve public
understanding of these programs as early as possible, the Department
intends to publish for the general public the results of value-added
earnings calculations, including median earnings, for all eligible
workforce programs as soon as they become available.
The Department will not require States to submit proposals
outlining how they plan to ensure compliance with an interim value-
added earnings calculation, because we do not have the legal authority
to require an interim calculation, nor subject a program's eligibility
to an interim calculation. We also do not see a need to require States
to share plans for increasing their data capacity to be in full
compliance with the value-added earnings metric by the 2030-31 award
year because the Department, rather than States or Governors, will
calculate the value-added earnings.
Changes: None.
Value-Added Earnings: Exclusion of Certain Students in the Completer
Cohort (Sec. 690.95(a))
Institutions must keep the tuition and fees for an eligible
workforce program below the program's calculated value-added earnings.
Value-added earnings are calculated by determining the difference
between adjusted median earnings of program completers and 150 percent
of the poverty guideline for a single individual. The Department sought
feedback from the community on whether certain students should be
excluded from the value-added earnings metric when assembling completer
cohorts, including currently enrolled students.
Comments: Many commenters recommended excluding currently enrolled
students from the value-added earnings metric. Commenters noted that
eligible workforce programs are intended to lead to a credential that
is stackable and portable. They argued that institutions should not be
penalized when students choose to continue their postsecondary
enrollment in other programs after graduating from an eligible
workforce program, and that including such students would necessarily
deflate program earnings outcomes since currently enrolled students
generally earn less than students who are not enrolled.
Discussion: The Department is persuaded by the commenters who
proposed excluding currently enrolled students from the value-added
earnings metric. In addition to the points raised about credential
stackability, the Department believes that this decision is relatively
administratively easy to execute, since the Department maintains
enrollment data for students who received title IV, HEA funds and can
therefore remove such students from a cohort.
There are significant differences between excluding currently
enrolled students from the value-added earnings cohort and excluding
them from the job placement rate. Notably, it would usually be much
more difficult for institutions to abuse the value-added earnings
metric by ensuring continued enrollment for potentially up to several
years (until the earnings measurement year). This differs from the job
placement metric, which until the 2028-29 award year is measured in the
second quarter after the individual exits the program and would
therefore be easier for institutions to potentially manipulate.
Additionally, including enrolled students in the job placement metric
reduces the likelihood that institutions could easily manipulate the
value-added earnings metric by encouraging students to move directly
from an eligible workforce program into another program.
Changes: The Department amends the regulations to include paragraph
(l) under Sec. 690.95 that states, ``The Secretary excludes a student
from the value-added earnings calculation if the Secretary determines
that the student was enrolled in any other educational program at the
institution or at another eligible institution during the calendar year
for which the Secretary obtains earnings information under paragraphs
(g) and (h) this section.''
Comments: One commenter recommended three exclusions that reflect
documented barriers specific to formerly confined or incarcerated
individuals that are entirely outside of a postsecondary institution's
control. The exclusions they commended included:
<bullet> Students subject to active occupational licensing
restrictions. The commenter believed that counting these students in
the value-added earnings cohort at suppressed wages punishes programs
for the collateral consequences of the criminal justice system, not for
poor educational outcomes;
<bullet> Students subject to active parole or probation conditions
that restrict employment. The commenter contextualized this request by
noting that supervision conditions frequently prohibit employment in
certain
[[Page 29265]]
industries, with certain employers, or during certain hours; and
<bullet> Students who completed the program within a correctional
facility and who were not released until more than 90 days after the
cohort period ended. They noted, that for in-facility programs,
students may complete training 6-18 months before their release date.
Their post-completion employment opportunity depends entirely on their
release date, not their completion date. Measuring earnings in the
second quarter after program exit--when the student may still be
incarcerated--structurally produces a zero-earnings result for students
who have not had any opportunity to enter the labor market.
Discussion: The Department notes that, for all these
recommendations, in the value-added earnings metric, a completer is not
included in the median earnings until three full years after program
completion. Also, an individual that is not employed is not included in
the median earnings, as only individuals that are working are included
in this metric.
We decline exclusions for currently or formerly incarcerated
students from the value-added earnings metrics. Under the regulations
for prison education programs at Sec. 668.238(a)(7), postsecondary
institutions are prohibited from enrolling a confined or incarcerated
individual into PEPs designed to lead to licensure or employment for a
specific job or occupation if such job or occupation typically involves
prohibitions on the licensure or employment of formerly confined or
incarcerated individuals.
It is incumbent upon the postsecondary institution to counsel a
student regarding the viability of their post-graduation employment
prospects in relation to any parole or probation conditions that
restrict employment. If a completer still has a restriction or
condition during the time when value-added earnings for the program is
calculated then the program may not best suit the students' need. Pell
Grant eligibility is limited; therefore, students should not exhaust
eligibility on eligible workforce programs that may not lead to
employment after completion.
We decline the third recommendation because the Department
calculates the value-added earnings three years after completion of the
eligible workforce program, which aligns with the first full tax year
following the award year in which the student completed the eligible
workforce program. Offering an eligible workforce program is voluntary;
it is incumbent upon an institution to decide if they are able to offer
an eligible workforce program that also functions as a prison education
program complying with all statutory and regulatory requirements.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters stated that students that are currently
enrolled should not be excluded from value-added earnings because the
goal of an eligible workforce program is to get completers into the
workforce as soon as possible, because value-added earnings are
calculated using median earnings of those who completed the program
three years prior, commenters believed that was an ample amount of time
to secure employment.
Discussion: The Department disagrees with the commenter who urged
the Department to continue including currently enrolled students in the
value-added earnings metric. The Department did take the commenter's
concern into consideration, and we chose not to exclude currently
enrolled individuals from the placement rate calculation because, in
addition to operational challenges we believe that would be
substantially more likely to cause institutions to establish eligible
workforce programs that are designed to move students into continued
enrollment rather than the workforce.
Changes: The Department will exclude students enrolled in an
educational program during the earnings measurement period, or the next
full tax year, from median earnings when the value-added earnings
metric is calculated.
Comments: One commenter recommended treating students that are
currently enrolled as a partial value of 0.5. For example, students
continuing in education would count for 0.5 in the denominator. The
commenter argues that this would have the effect of tempering negative
impacts from a subset of students directly transitioning to new
programs out of an eligible workforce program, while also
disincentivizing the creation of programs that funnel students into
additional enrollment instead of the workforce.
Discussion: The Department does not believe we have the legal
authority to treat a student that is enrolled in a program as a partial
value. We decline the recommendation because the commenter did not
provide any legislative or regulatory examples of such a proposal
currently existing or being legally supportable.
While the Department believes that there is a basis for excluding
certain individuals from the calculation from a program's value-adding
earnings entirely, such as in the case of students who completed a
program and are now enrolled in another educational program, the
statute does not provide any basis for weighting any individual (or
category of individuals) included in the calculation of a program's
value-adding earnings differently from any other individuals included
in the same calculation. See HEA Sec. 481(b)(3)(A)(iv)(IV). Because of
this, the Department believes that it would be improper to attempt to
add such a factor into the calculation, much less determine what
weighting value should be ascribed to currently enrolled students (or
any other class of individuals).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department exclude
individuals in subsidized employment placements required by TANF,
Medicaid work requirements, or court-ordered service programs.
Discussion: We decline to exclude these individuals. If graduates
do not obtain employment, but instead need to access public benefits,
that should be reflected in median earnings so as to accurately
describe student outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that value-added earnings
results be disaggregated and published by employment status (full-time/
part-time) and by caregiver-identified status where data permit, so
that programs serving predominantly part-time workers are evaluated in
the appropriate context.
Discussion: We decline the commenter's recommendation. The statute
does not distinguish between full-time or part-time positions. The
purpose of receiving Pell Grant funds under the Workforce Pell
provisions is to obtain high-wage employment after completing the
program. The value-added earnings calculation is a standardized method
for evaluating earnings. The Department has provided various exceptions
that include exclusions for individuals who are not working. The
Department does not believe that part-time employment can be accurately
and consistently distinguished from employment that is low-wage, and we
therefore do not believe it would be useful to further disaggregate
value-added earnings results in the manner described by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Value-Added Earnings: Process for Combining Multiple Cohorts (Sec.
690.95(h))
The Department sought feedback from relevant stakeholders regarding
the
[[Page 29266]]
process of computing the value-added earnings metric for programs with
small numbers of students. The Department was particularly interested
in feedback pertaining to its proposed method for aggregating multiple
years of cohorts together to increase cohort sizes.
Comments: A few commenters proposed that the Department modify the
method it uses to aggregate completers from small programs to reach the
minimum cohort size needed for the value-added earnings calculation.
Some commenters advocated that the Department use completers from the
cohort period and up to four additional award years, for a maximum of
five award years. One commenter argued that this process would be
advantageous because programs in emerging fields (such as artificial
intelligence (AI)) may have small cohort sizes initially.
Alternatively, one commenter argued against this approach, noting that
expanding the cohort aggregation process to include additional years--
beyond four years of program completers--would not realistically
represent the present-day outcomes of the program.
Other commenters expressed concern that the cohort aggregation
process proposed for calculating the value-added earnings metric does
not match the cohort aggregation process in the recently released STATS
and Earnings Accountability NPRM (91 FR 21088), published April 20,
2026. One commenter noted that maintaining different cohort aggregation
processes will create unnecessary administrative burden on the
Department. Another commenter noted that consistent cohort aggregation
processes are critical for giving students clear and consistent
information about program outcomes. Both commenters advocated for the
simpler two-year and four-year cohort aggregation structure that was
previously used in the 2014 and 2023 gainful employment regulations.
Commenters noted that this approach would be simpler, reduce burden on
the Department, better facilitate comparability of earnings across
time, and reduce year-to-year variability in how a program's earnings
are measured.
Another commenter was similarly concerned about the misalignment in
cohort aggregation processes across this regulation and the proposed
cohort aggregation process from the consensus language for the STATS
and Earnings Accountability regulations. To address this, the commenter
recommended changing the cohort aggregation process to match the
process in the recently released STATS and Earnings Accountability
NPRM. Under this approach, the commenter proposed that the Department
could aggregate cohorts at the six-digit Classification of
Instructional Program (CIP) code level across eight years to reach a
minimum threshold of 30 completers for calculating value-added
earnings. Should that number not be reached, completers at the four-
digit CIP code and credential level would be added. If the minimum
number of completers was still not reached, then the process would
repeat at the two-digit CIP code and credential level.
Discussion: The Department agrees with commenters who suggested
simplifying and aligning the cohort aggregation process with the
processes used in prior regulations. The Department disagrees with
commenters who suggested adding a fifth award year to the cohort
aggregation process and with commenters who suggested aggregating
cohorts to the four-digit and two-digit CIP code level. The Department
considered several factors when making these determinations.
First, the Department agrees that a revised process will reduce
administrative burden. The current cohort aggregation process included
four individual steps, iteratively aggregating completers from the
cohort period and three prior award years. The Department agrees with
commenters who contemplated combining the last two steps into a single
step (adding completers from the second and third prior award years at
the same time, rather than individually). Such an approach reduces the
amount of burden on the Department when creating program completer
lists, since it would not have to design an individual process to add
completers from the second and third prior award years individually.
Second, the Department agrees that aligning the cohort aggregation
processes will provide clearer information to students. The simplified
cohort aggregation process contemplated by commenters will better
ensure that earnings information is consistently reported to students,
since the Department would no longer need to maintain two separate
cohort aggregation processes. Furthermore, a streamlined process will
reduce complexity for the Department, who would otherwise have to
design and administer two distinct cohort aggregation processes.
Third, the Department agrees that a streamlined process will
improve cohort consistency over time, allowing for more consistent
earnings comparisons over time. The simplified cohort aggregation
process contemplated by commenters will enhance the likelihood that
cohorts are consistently aggregated to the same level each year,
thereby reducing the possibility of year-to-year fluctuations due to
differences in cohorts that are included in any one particular year.
Lastly, the Department agrees with commenters who argued to align
the cohort aggregation processes from this regulation with the cohort
aggregation process used in the STATS and Earnings Accountability NPRM.
As part of this alignment process, the Department believes it is
necessary to lower the cohort aggregation threshold for these
regulations in this final rule from 50 to 30, which will allow the
Department to use the same cohort aggregation process across both
regulations, thereby forming consistent cohorts.
The Department disagrees with commenters who proposed adding a
fifth year to the cohort aggregation process and with commenters who
proposed aggregating up to the four-digit and two-digit CIP code level.
Aggregating for additional years beyond the fourth prior year risks
reducing the ability of the Department to measure a program's present-
day outcomes. Similarly, because eligible workforce programs are
relatively short in duration, the Department is concerned that
aggregating cohorts using four-digit and two-digit CIP codes will risk
combining program outcomes that are from entirely different types of
programs, which may unfairly benefit or disadvantage certain types of
programs.
Changes: The Department will update the regulations under Sec.
690.95(h) to account for an additional year when combining cohorts. We
amend paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), strike paragraph (h)(4), and
redesignate (h)(5) to (h)(4) as follows:
(h)(1) If the final list of students who completed the program
during the cohort period includes at least 30 students, the Secretary
sends information about those individuals to the Federal agency with
earnings data;
(2) If the final list of students who completed the program during
the cohort period does not include at least 30 students, the Secretary
adds students who completed the same program during the first award
year prior to the cohort period. If the combined number of completers
from both award years includes at least 30 students, the Secretary
sends information about those individuals to the Federal agency with
earnings data;
(3) If the final list of students who completed the program during
the cohort period and the first award year
[[Page 29267]]
prior to the cohort period does not include at least 30 students, the
Secretary adds students who completed the same program during the
second and third award years prior to the cohort period. If the
combined number of completers from all four award years includes at
least 30 students, the Secretary sends information about those
individuals to the Federal agency with earnings data;
(4) If the final list of students who completed the program during
the cohort period and the first, second, and third award years prior to
the cohort period does not include at least 30 students, the Secretary
does not calculate value-added earnings for the program for that award
year.
Comments: In response to the directed question, one commenter asked
if the Department needs to--or should--create carveouts for certain
fields or rural public institutions. The commenter used an example of a
Hydrogeology program, which may graduate less than 50 students over a
three-year period. The commenter also noted that, for such programs,
two or three years of program or student data is needed before they can
understand what the right `regulatory specificity' is. They also asked
if, for such programs, language could be built that functions more as a
temporary framework or guidance that can be modified in the future.
Discussion: The Department disagrees with the commenter. Using
enrollment in undergraduate certificate programs, the Department
estimated the size of existing short-term certificate programs. For
that reason, we do not believe it is necessary to wait for two to three
years of program or student data, as the commenter requested, to
determine an appropriate cohort aggregation procedure. Furthermore, the
Department does not believe it has the authority to delay the
implementation of these regulations due to the hypothetical example
raised by the commenter, nor does it have the authority to create
exemptions to the cohort aggregation process for specific institutions
or programs based on their location.
Changes: None.
Value-Added Earnings: Programs Serving Out-of-State Students (Sec.
690.95(k))
The Department sought feedback on its proposal that, if more than
50 percent of students enrolled in an eligible workforce program are
not located in the State in which the eligible institution offering the
program is located, the Department will not adjust the program's median
earnings by the State and metropolitan area regional price parities of
the Bureau of Economic Analysis when calculating the value-added
earnings measurement.
Comments: While some commenters supported the Department's
position, several commenters disagreed with the Department's proposal.
These commenters stated that the Department should not default to
national median earnings for programs serving mobile or out-of-State
students without an approved State alternative methodology, as national
benchmarks may not reflect the economic value of programs aligned with
States' regional labor markets. One commenter suggested that the
Department allow institutions to appeal a determination regarding the
student location if the institution can prove that more than 50 percent
of students in the eligible workforce program are located in the State
in which the eligible institution offering the program is located. They
described this appeal as strictly limited to institutions with more
than 50 percent of students outside the State. In the instance of an
appeal, the commenters proposed that institutions could use IRS data to
confirm the students' location.
Discussion: We decline the commenter's recommendation. We believe
that adding an appeals process would add significant, additional burden
to the process. The standardized method that requires using the
student's address or State of legal residence as reported on their Free
Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA[supreg]) form at the time of
enrollment will result in consistent application of the regulation.
During negotiated rulemaking, the Department proposed to use
information provided on the FAFSA form by an applicant regarding their
permanent address as the means of determining the State in which the
student is located. We chose this method in part because of precedence
for the use of this method in the Financial Value Transparency and
Gainful Employment metric calculation process, with the attendant
savings in operational costs, as well as because the Department's
strong view is that institutions should not be granted the ability to
interpret an individual's true ``location'' due to the likelihood that
some institutions would use such discretion to place students in a
State that would be most beneficial to the program's value-added
earnings calculation. For this reason, the Department continues to
believe that the best indication of a permanent location must be
provided by the individuals themselves--who do not have an incentive to
choose a State that best benefits the program and the institution--and
not by institutions, which do have such an incentive.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that the approach introduces a
separate structure for determining student location that may not align
with these established institutional determinations. They noted that
the reported State of residence on the FAFSA form may not reflect a
student's actual physical location during enrollment or the labor
market in which the student ultimately earns wages. As a result,
institutions may face conflicting Federal expectations regarding how
student location is defined and applied. The commenter recommended that
the Department:
<bullet> Define determination of ``student location'' consistently
across 690.95(k), 600.9(c)(2), and 668.43(c)(3)(ii), or explicitly
distinguish the purposes and definitions if differences are necessary.
<bullet> Permit institutions to rely on student location
determinations already made for compliance with 600.9(c)(2) and
668.43(c)(3)(ii), where those determinations are based on documented
and consistently applied institutional policies; and
<bullet> Provide clear guidance on how discrepancies between
Federal data sources and institutional records will be resolved,
including which source will be considered authoritative for purposes of
value-added earnings calculations.
Another commenter recommended that the Department allow
institutions to use verified institutional records to determine student
location, where available. In addition, they believed the Department
should consider flexible reporting options for students experiencing
homelessness, such as allowing institutions to identify students as in-
State or out-of-State based on enrollment or service data, rather than
relying solely on addresses reported on the FAFSA form. The commenter
stated that FAFSA data are not a reliable location indicator for
students experiencing homelessness.
Discussion: We decline the commenters' suggestions. The
standardized method of using the student's address or State of legal
residence as reported on their FAFSA form at the time of enrollment,
will result in consistent application of the regulation. That said, the
Department appreciates these comments and commits to evaluating its
instructions for students to enter a permanent address on the FAFSA
form in light of its importance for the process of calculating value-
added earnings and other uses for the STATS and Earnings Accountability
process.
[[Page 29268]]
The regulations under 34 CFR 600.9(c)(2), and 668.43(c)(3)(ii) were
designed for a different purpose than these requirements; specifically,
those regulations were designed to establish where an individual is
located for State authorization purposes and for purposes of
determining whether an institution was required to ensure that
licensing requirements for a particular State were met if a student was
located in that State. These requirements give the institution more
control over the process of determining a student's location for this
purpose, and the Department continues to believe that they are
reasonable for that purpose to ensure that a program does not lose
eligibility due to a technicality. Conversely, these regulations
pertain to a process for determining where a student is located for
purposes of the value-added earnings calculation, where the benefit of
using an individual's indication of their personal address outweighs
the benefit of an institution having control over that process,
particularly given the potential for institutional gaming of that
process, as described in the Department's response to the comment
above.
Furthermore, the Department does not believe that a clear,
consistent method exists to establish the specific location of an
individual who is homeless, and the potential benefit of establishing a
complicated framework for addressing such cases for the purposes of the
value-added earnings calculation does not outweigh the significant
costs, complexity, and burden associated with establishing an
alternative process for determining their location. Many homeless
individuals change locations within the same State and lack access to
transportation; others may shift location across State lines and lack a
permanent location.
Changes: None.
Responses to Comments Received on NPRM
General Comments
Comments: Many commenters urged the Department to strengthen
engagement with the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human
Services, the Small Business Administration, employers, businesses,
adult education providers, State higher educational officials,
correctional facilities, State workforce boards, Governors, US
territories, accrediting agencies, nonprofit workforce organizations,
organizations that work with unaccompanied homeless youth,
postsecondary institutions, and other stakeholders to promote the
successful implementation of eligible workforce programs.
Commenters requested the Department release sub regulatory guidance
on all provisions in the final regulations, including clarification on
the Department of Labor's (DOL) role in the rules and if DOL or the
Department of Education has the ultimate authority over eligible
workforce programs. A few commenters also requested a unified data
reporting pathway so that institutions report program data once, to
avoid having to report to both DOL and the Department of Education.
Many commenters requested more guidance on other provisions outside
of the regulations that impact student, program, and institutional
eligibility, including areas such as satisfactory academic progress,
ability to benefit, eligible career pathway programs, prison education
programs, and written arrangements. Commenters also requested examples
of how Governors will calculate outcome measures. Commenters
recommended additional written guidance be provided through various
publications including the Federal Student Aid (FSA) Handbook,
frequently asked questions, Dear Colleague Letters, or Electronic
Announcements. They also recommended that the Department conduct
webinars and workshops with stakeholders.
Several commenters also stressed that the Department prioritize the
timely release of final regulations, release technical specifications,
and provide interim guidance to support implementation. Commenters also
requested guidance, systems, and communications tailored to the new
eligible workforce program student population, particularly those in
PEPs and in the military. Commenters warned that although each proposed
eligible workforce program requirement may seem reasonable on its own,
the combined effect could sharply reduce the number of programs able or
willing to participate, especially early on. The commenters expressed
concern that programs that are high-quality but have limited
administrative capacity may be discouraged from applying under a brand-
new, fast-moving eligibility system. The commenters claimed that many
States may still be determining how to structure and resource their new
responsibilities, and that the lack of clear Federal guidance may
increase the likelihood of inconsistent implementation, delays, and
confusion for students. The commenters believed this uncertainty may
ultimately deter institutions from seeking approval, which limits the
intent and goals of eligible workforce programs.
Discussion: The Department commits to continue collaboration with
stakeholders, monitor implementation closely, and prepare additional
guidance or resources to ensure consistent and timely access to Pell
Grants in eligible workforce programs across all States and
institutions. The Department believes this final regulation provides
additional clarity and guidance and we commit to providing follow-up
resources as needed by eligible workforce programs writ large. The
structure of these regulations provides eligible workforce programs
with the time and flexibility needed to adapt their programs to meet
the requirements of this final rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters expressed concern that expanding Pell
Grant eligibility to workforce programs could increase overall Pell
Grant expenditures, particularly during a time when the Pell Grant
program is projected to face funding shortfalls. The commenter urged
the Department to work closely with Congress to secure sustainable
long-term funding for both traditional Pell Grants and Pell Grants
funding for eligible workforce programs. The commenter also suggested
several potential policy changes for broader Pell Grant reform,
including modifying the Pell Grant eligibility formula to better target
aid to the neediest students, redesigning the year-round Pell Grant
model to distribute benefits more broadly, and restructuring Pell
Grants as a multiyear grant to promote persistence and completion.
Discussion: The Department recognizes that the statutory expansion
of Pell Grant eligibility for eligible workforce programs may influence
program expenditures, as estimated in Table 4.1 in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis. The Department will continue to work closely with
Congress, which holds the authority to appropriate additional
resources, and will provide timely information to support informed
budgetary decision-making. With respect to the commenters' suggested
broader reforms, such as modifying the Pell Grant eligibility formula,
redesigning the year-round Pell Grant structure, or establishing
multiyear Pell Grant awards, these policy considerations extend beyond
the scope of this rulemaking. Any such changes would require separate
statutory or regulatory action and cannot be adopted within this final
rule.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter was particularly concerned with the
[[Page 29269]]
influence of foreign adversaries over the United States. The commenter
was acutely interested in the role eligible workforce programs could
play in national defense. For example, the commenter stated that the
Department should create more checks to ensure that foreign adversaries
do not have undue influence in eligible workforce programs, such as
requiring the Department to create a National Security Workforce
Priority list and a Workforce Pell Grant Foreign Payment Monitoring
Protocol. The commenter also suggested the Department conduct threat
assessments of eligible workforce programs in collaboration with the
Federal Bureau of Investigations and annual consultation with the
Department of War. The commenter was also interested in how artificial
intelligence could be used by foreign adversaries for economic warfare.
Finally, the commenter stated that the Department did not consider
several additional statutes when drafting the NPRM and must add
policies, frameworks, and reviews to the final regulation that consider
applicable statutes including the CHIPS Act, the Foreign Agents
Registration Act, the Economic Espionage Act, Federal Information
Technology Acquisition Reform Act, Defend Trade Secrets Act, the Wolf
Amendments framework, Bank Secrecy Act, International Emergency
Economic Powers Act, Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, Federal
Acquisition Regulations, and the Government Performance and Results
Act.
Discussion: The Department declines the commenter's requests.
Throughout the 60-comment submission that included hundreds of demands,
the commenter did not provide one example of current foreign influence
that would warrant inclusion of the recommendations in the final rule.
While the commenter did mention the Confucius Institutes, as of 2023,
according to the Government Accountability Office, there were fewer
than five Confucius Institutes still active within the United States.
Most importantly, an eligible workforce program cannot be offered by a
Confucius Institute because it is not an eligible institution. The
Department expects postsecondary institutions to comply with all
applicable Federal laws. The Department does not have enforcement
authority over most of the Federal laws the commenter included in the
submission. The appropriate Federal agency with jurisdiction will
oversee proper enforcement of such laws and the Department is committed
to working with any Federal agency that seeks assistance in enforcing
Federal laws. Section 117 of the HEA requires institutions of higher
education to report covered gifts and contracts from foreign entities
to the Department. We recently released guidance on a new Reporting
Portal for Reporting of Foreign Gifts and Contracts under Section 117
of the HEA to increase transparency and oversight of these
transactions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Electronic Announcement General-25-46: <a href="https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/electronic-announcements/2025-12-01/new-reporting-portal-reporting-foreign-gifts-and-contracts-under-section-117-higher-education-act-1965-implementation-planned-january-2026-and-reminder-january-reporting-deadline">https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/electronic-announcements/2025-12-01/new-reporting-portal-reporting-foreign-gifts-and-contracts-under-section-117-higher-education-act-1965-implementation-planned-january-2026-and-reminder-january-reporting-deadline</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters urged the Department to make eligible
workforce programs effective immediately, rather than waiting until
July 2026. Drawing on personal experience with months-long WIOA
processing delays after being laid off, one commenter argued that the
current system keeps qualified workers from starting training in a
timely manner. The commenter further argued that accelerating Pell
Grants for eligible workforce programs would allow displaced workers to
enroll directly in short-term college programs without having to
navigate slow, burdensome approval pipelines.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's experience
and agrees that timely access to high-quality workforce training is
critical for displaced workers seeking to re-enter the labor market.
However, the effective date is shaped by statutory requirements,
system-readiness constraints, and the timeline necessary for States and
institutions to build and certify eligible workforce programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the Department to require
institutions offering eligible workforce programs to proactively inform
students about the full range of Federal, State, and local public
benefits and supports for which they may be eligible. The commenter
asserted that, because eligible workforce program students are low-
income and face substantial non-tuition costs and often cannot access
Federal student loans, students may face significant financial gaps
that could push them toward predatory private loans or excessive work
hours. The commenter recommended requiring institutions to provide
clear benefits information to all eligible workforce program students;
designate a staff member or office responsible for connecting them to
benefits such as SNAP, TANF, CCDF, Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax
Credit, and the Child Tax Credit; and report how they are informing
students of such options.
Discussion: We recognize that students in short-term programs may
experience non-tuition costs. We also agree that students may benefit
from information about Federal, State, and local public benefit
programs for which they may be eligible. At the same time, the
Department declines to establish a new regulatory requirement that
institutions provide individualized benefits counseling, designate a
dedicated benefits access office, or report benefits outreach
activities as a condition of Pell Grant funding for eligible workforce
programs. The statutory framework for eligible workforce programs under
the WFTCA does not provide authority for the Department to impose such
requirements on institutions, nor does it require institutions to
administer, screen for, or coordinate eligibility across public
benefits such as SNAP, TANF, CCDF, Medicaid, or tax credits. These
benefits are administered under separate Federal and State authorities,
each with their own eligibility structures and verification processes.
Nevertheless, we reiterate that institutions retain broad discretion to
offer student support services, including referrals to public benefit
programs, financial coaching, or emergency aid, as part of their
existing student services infrastructure. Many institutions already
assist students in connecting to external supports, and we encourage
institutions and States to continue these efforts where feasible.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters urged the Department to adopt strong
oversight and safeguards as it implements eligible workforce programs.
The commenters warned that expanding Pell Grants to short-term
workforce programs introduces significant risks, as similar expansions
in the past enabled predatory, low-quality, high-cost programs,
particularly among for-profit institutions and newer online credential
providers (e.g., tech bootcamps, OPM-run programs), to prey on
unsuspecting students.
The commenters cited several examples of abuse, including deceptive
marketing, inflated job-placement rates, misuse of income-share
agreements, lack of transparency, weak instruction, and revenue-sharing
arrangements that divert Federal funds away from accredited
institutions. The commenters argued that strict guardrails are
necessary to ensure eligible workforce programs will not supercharge
the ability for low-quality educational
[[Page 29270]]
providers to participate in potentially predatory behaviors,
reiterating that student protection must be the Department's priority.
Discussion: Safeguarding students and protecting Federal funds
remain central priorities for the Department.
As described throughout this final rule, the Department has
established a comprehensive accountability framework for eligible
workforce programs designed to prevent low-quality or predatory
programs from gaining or maintaining Pell Grant eligibility. These
safeguards include Governor certification requirements under Sec.
690.93 to ensure programs align with high-skill, high-wage, or in-
demand occupations, Secretary-determined performance requirements under
Sec. 690.94, including minimum completion and job placement
thresholds, a value-added earnings metric under Sec. 690.95 to verify
that programs lead to earnings meaningfully higher than the poverty
line, clear limitations on written arrangements and restrictions on the
role of ineligible entities, consistent with the Department's broader
oversight of third-party program delivery, and prohibitions on
reestablishing failing or substantially similar programs for two years
under Sec. 690.97. Collectively, these measures are intended to ensure
that only high-quality workforce programs serving students' interests
can receive Pell Grant funds, while preventing providers, whether for-
profit, online, or operating through contractual arrangements, from
exploiting the new program structure.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter argued that, for eligible workforce
programs to receive Pell Grants and be effective, the Department must
be fully functional and capable of implementing the program. The
commenter expressed strong concern that the dismantling of the
Department will undermine the Department's ability to carry out the
law. They criticized the reductions in force and efforts to move
Federal Student Aid operations to the Department of the Treasury and
note that these structural changes were not addressed in the NPRM.
Alternatively, a different commenter supported the Department's
efforts to fully implement the Workforce Pell Grant provisions at
current staffing levels. The commenter stated that the Department
should leverage its existing capacity which will promote continuity,
reduce administrative fragmentation, and minimize implementation risk.
The commenter stated that the introduction of new personnel is neither
necessary nor wise, particularly because it could cause duplicative
functions or dilute accountability within established operational
structures.
Discussion: The Department disagrees with the commenter's assertion
that it does not have sufficient staff to implement the Workforce Pell
Grant law and regulations. Furthermore, the Department affirms its
commitment to implementing eligible workforce programs faithfully,
transparently, and in accordance with all statutory requirements. We
will continue to coordinate across offices, provide technical
assistance to States, institutions, and accrediting agencies, and
maintain the infrastructure necessary to safeguard title IV, HEA funds
and support students' access to high-quality- workforce training
programs. This commitment will remain regardless of any operational
shifts.
The Department thanks the other commenter for their support of our
efforts to implement the Workforce Pell Grant provisions under current
operational conditions.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended the Department to clearly state
that developing eligible workforce programs is voluntary for both
States and institutions. The commenter also requested that programs be
allowed to withdraw from participation for any reason, not just solely
due to failure to meet eligibility requirements.
Discussion: Developing eligible workforce programs is indeed
voluntary for both States and institutions. States are not required to
approve eligible workforce programs, and institutions are not required
to seek approval or offer eligible workforce programs. This voluntary
approach is consistent with the statutory structure, which allows
States and institutions to determine whether participation aligns with
their workforce development strategies and institutional priorities.
Regarding program withdrawal, the Department agrees that institutions
should have the flexibility to discontinue eligible workforce programs
for any reason. The regulations do not restrict withdrawal solely to
cases of failure to meet eligibility requirements. Institutions may
choose to withdraw an eligible workforce program from participation in
the Pell Grant program at their discretion, whether due to changes in
institutional priorities, program restructuring, or other
considerations. If a program is withdrawn, the institution must follow
the appropriate notification and reporting procedures to ensure
compliance with Federal requirements and to protect the interests of
enrolled students.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters recommended the development of a
centralized, public-facing list of eligible workforce programs approved
for participation in the Pell Grant program. One commenter asserted
that such a list would ensure students are well supported in navigating
these new programs and opportunities. The commenter recommended that
the Department utilize the Federal Student Aid Data Center to provide
students and employees with a trusted resource to verify the program's
eligibility. Another commenter requested that the list be searchable by
State, occupation, and credential type.
Discussion: While the Department declines to add specific
regulatory language to this rule regarding the commenter's
recommendation, we do commit to exploring the possibility of releasing
information about approved eligible workforce programs as soon as it
becomes available. Additionally, in the preamble to the NPRM, we
strongly encouraged Governors to maintain and publish a list of
eligible workforce programs in their State.
The Committee on Appropriations for Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies directed the
Department to collect and report to Congress a complete list of
institutions of higher education and programs that have gained
eligibility for Workforce Pell Grants, and the Department will explore
the possibility of releasing such information to the broader public
when it provides the information to Congress.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters requested that the Department require
specific curriculum or instruction in every eligible workforce program,
such as problem solving and teamwork.
Discussion: The Department does not regulate, control, or direct
the curriculum and instructional materials used by higher education
institutions and is primarily concerned with the eligible workforce
program meeting our eligibility requirements outlined in 34 CFR 690
Subpart H. Governors will determine in-demand occupations, which will
focus the institutions' program offerings in areas that will help
graduates gain high-wage employment.
Changes: None.
General Agreement With the Proposed Regulations
Comments: Many commenters expressed appreciation for the
Department's efforts to expand access to
[[Page 29271]]
Pell Grants through the eligible workforce program initiative. A few
commenters strongly supported the inclusion of Registered
Apprenticeships within this framework, with one noting that recognizing
Registered Apprenticeship completion as a recognized postsecondary
credential and enabling related instruction to qualify for Pell Grant
funding in eligible workforce programs represents an important step
toward strengthening workforce development in skilled trades.
Several commenters supported using Pell Grants to cover
transportation programs, noting that the cost of these programs can be
unaffordable for many students. The commenters believed this final rule
will help address critical workforce shortages in essential industries
like trucking.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
General Opposition to the Proposed Regulations
Comments: One commenter expressed opposition to government funding
for higher education, arguing that it leads to higher costs. Instead,
the commenter suggested providing free, public continuing education for
workforce training or higher education.
Discussion: Congress has expressly directed the Department to
implement statutory changes that expand Pell Grant eligibility to
eligible workforce programs and to establish accountability
requirements for those programs. Decisions about replacing or
restructuring Federal student financial aid programs fall within
Congress's legislative authority, not the Department's regulatory
authority.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter erroneously believed Pell Grants would be
eliminated with this final rule.
Discussion: This final rule does not eliminate the Pell Grant
program. Rather, it allows students to receive Pell Grants for programs
that were previously ineligible. These programs, referred to as
``eligible workforce programs,'' are intended to be high-quality,
performance-based, short-term programs that support America's workforce
needs.
Changes: None.
Rulemaking
Comments: One commenter stated that Congress would have put a
waiver to the master calendar requirements in statute, if its intention
was for the Department to implement these regulations on July 1, 2026.
Given this, the commenter believed that the final rules issued in 2026
should have an implementation date of July 1, 2027, at the earliest.
The commenter stated that abiding by the master calendar gives
institutions the proper amount of time to prepare for the changes
implemented by the Department, adequately inform students and families
of the changes to their student aid, and plan for the smoothest
possible transition.
Discussion: We decline the commenter's suggestion. Section 401(k)
of the HEA states that ``For the award year beginning on July 1, 2026,
and each subsequent award year, the Secretary shall award grants (to be
known as `Workforce Pell Grants') to eligible students under paragraph
(2) in accordance with this subsection.'' We intend to implement these
final regulations on July 1, 2026.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters were pleased with the negotiated
rulemaking process. However, one commenter urged the Department to
provide more time for future negotiated rulemakings so that appointed
experts can fully understand the issues, consult stakeholders, and work
toward consensus. The commenter also stressed the need for broader and
more comprehensive institutional representation on the negotiating
committee.
Discussion: The Department strives to balance the need for thorough
deliberation with statutory timelines and administrative requirements,
and we select negotiators with the goal of ensuring balanced
representation across the communities most affected by the regulations.
We will continue to apply this principle in future rulemakings to
ensure negotiators have sufficient time to review materials, consult
with stakeholders, and engage meaningfully in the discussions.
Changes: None.
Pell Grant Ineligibility Due to Non-Federal Grant or Scholarship
Assistance (Sec. 690.5(a) and (b))
Comments: There was a general understanding that this regulation
implements the new provision in the HEA established by the WFTCA. One
commenter agreed with the provision because it would be a responsible
allocation of Federal dollars by declining Pell Grants in cases where
students' cost of attendance is already met and using those funds for
students who have need instead.
Discussion: The Department thanks commenters for their
understanding of the issue.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters urged the Department to clarify how the
new Pell Grant ineligibility rule for students who receive non-Federal
grants equaling or exceeding their cost of attendance will interact
with State ``last-dollar'' grant programs and Promise programs. One
commenter asked the Department to confirm that these programs may
continue operating as last-dollar aid without jeopardizing Pell Grant
eligibility as long as total non-Federal aid remains below COA. The
commenter noted that the NPRM's request for ideas to prevent ``gaming''
is unnecessary because the statute already provides adequate oversight
mechanisms, and Congress did not create new reporting or enforcement
requirements for this provision. The commenter also highlighted
potential inequities: institutions can adjust their own aid to avoid
overawards, but they cannot adjust private or external scholarships
which means students with identical financial circumstances could
receive different Pell Grant outcomes. The commenter recommended the
Department create clear guidance and communication materials for
external scholarship providers.
Additionally, the commenter asked for clarification surrounding how
WIOA funds should be treated under the new rule, given WIOA's
historical use as last-dollar aid. The commenter urged the Department
to explicitly exclude WIOA funding from counting as non-Federal aid for
Pell Grant eligibility purposes. Finally, the commenter requested
clarification on how to handle cases where a student's Pell Grant
eligibility increases after all aid has been disbursed and non-Federal
aid already meets COA. The commenter asked the Department to specify
whether institutions may disburse the additional Pell Grant amount or
must first reduce non-Federal aid before releasing additional Pell
Grant funds.
Other commenters also requested that WIOA funds be allowed to work
together with Pell Grants and that the Department publish guidance
explaining how to braid such funding effectively while minimizing
administrative burden on institutions and students. Commenters
encouraged the Department of Education to build on its collaboration
with the DOL in this effort.
One commenter was unclear about how grant and scholarship
assistance would be defined in the regulations.
Discussion: The Department clarifies that grant and scholarship
assistance is aid that does not have to be repaid. It encompasses
dollars that are explicitly
[[Page 29272]]
called grants and scholarships as well as funds that are not, such as
tuition reimbursements. ``Last-dollar'' grant and scholarship programs,
including WIOA funds, will continue to be packaged as they have been;
the difference is that now once all non-Federal grant and scholarship
aid equals or exceeds the COA, the student becomes ineligible for a
Pell grant. In many cases, the relevance of this provision will be
clear early--for example, students who receive a ``full-ride''
scholarship will not be eligible for a Pell Grant, and the institution
will be aware of that at the beginning of the year. When non-Federal
grants and scholarships accumulate over the award year, the institution
will need to check with each receipt of funds to ensure that they do
not total an amount that equals or exceeds the COA; if it does and Pell
Grant funds remain to be disbursed, the institution will need to adjust
the amount to below the COA for the student to retain the Pell Grant.
Barring that, the Pell Grant must be returned, as explained in Sec.
690.80. Note that institutions are used to monitoring late-arriving aid
because they are required to address potential overpayments at any time
during the payment period.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Federal Student Aid Handbook--Volume 3, Chapter 3--Packaging
Aid--<a href="https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook/2025-2026/vol3/ch3-packaging-aid#pid_1455637">https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook/2025-2026/vol3/ch3-packaging-aid#pid_1455637</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because WIOA funds are provided through the DOL, they are
considered Federal dollars, even though they are distributed by the
States, and do not count toward the total of non-Federal scholarship
and grant aid. To the extent that any funds are directly traceable to
the U.S. Government, those would also be Federal dollars that do not
count toward the relevant total. If funds are directly traceable to
States or other non-Federal sources, they would count toward the total
and in a sufficient amount will result in Pell Grant ineligibility.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters expressed concern that the new Pell
Grant exclusion might have the harmful effect of discouraging existing
support from non-Federal sources or would otherwise interrupt the flow
of that support. The types of support referenced by the commenters
included employer sponsorships, philanthropic assistance, and local
workforce development funding. The commenters stated that participants
in workforce training programs have costs beyond tuition and fees,
including transportation, childcare, and housing, etc., that are
associated with participating in training. They claimed that removing
Pell Grant eligibility would especially harm needy students, who have
earned their scholarships and grants, while allowing Pell Grants to
work alongside other funds would ensure those students can complete
their programs successfully.
Some commenters thought that the new rule effectively changed Pell
Grants from being ``first-dollar'' to ``last-dollar'' aid. They noted
that this would be a significant change because it would replace
Federal entitlement aid with private and institutional funds.
Some commenters misunderstood the provision and its implications.
For example, one worried that the rule could unintentionally penalize
programs that are most effectively serving participants facing the
greatest barriers. They offered an example in which a student who
received transportation support, tool allowances, and a housing stipend
from a State emergency assistance program (all non-Federal grant or
scholarship aid) ``could be deemed ineligible for Pell if the combined
amount approaches their COA, even if none of these funds are paying for
training itself.''
One of the commenters requested that there be a carveout for
defense worker educational benefits and that State workforce
development grants specifically designed to supplement Federal
financial aid be excluded from the calculation if the State grant's
authorizing legislation includes a Federal aid preservation clause.
Another commenter asked that State assistance that is designed to
offset a component of the COA be excluded from this determination.
Finally, one commenter asserted that high-need populations
frequently receive non-Federal aid exceeding the COA ``by design,''
which, under the new law and regulation, would cause them to lose Pell
Grant eligibility.
Discussion: The Department does not agree that funders would be
inclined to retract aid for students who become ineligible for Pell
Grants because their COA is covered. A logical conclusion on the part
of funding providers would be that their funding is even more important
given that the student will not receive a Pell Grant. The opposite case
would seem to make such funding more likely to disappear: if the COA
were mostly or entirely covered by a Pell Grant, the student would then
be in less need of the non-Federal funding.
Under the new law and regulations, scholarship providers, States,
employers, institutions, and any other non-Federal funder of higher
education are free to provide students with as much grant or
scholarship assistance as they desire, to include more than the
student's COA if they choose, but students will not be eligible to
receive a Pell Grant in those cases. The implication of the new law is
clear: Pell Grants are intended to cover the costs of higher education
for needy students; they are not intended to be a financial reward for
students who have no need, and, by definition, students whose entire
COA has been met or exceeded by non-Federal grant or scholarship
dollars have no financial need or unmet educational expenses as defined
under the law.
Also, some commenters demonstrated a lack of understanding of
exactly what the COA entails, which is more than just tuition and fees.
It typically includes an allotment for food, housing, transportation,
and childcare, as well as other costs that are associated with
obtaining an education. When the COA is fully funded, the assumption is
that all costs that will be incurred while the student is enrolled in
the program will be met. When the normal COA for a student in a given
program does not anticipate special circumstances and there are extra
costs, such as abnormally high medical bills to the student or a family
member, financial aid administrators at the school are permitted to
exercise PJ to adjust for such circumstances and increase the COA if
warranted.
Regarding the commenter who worried that the rule could
unintentionally penalize programs that are most effectively serving
participants facing the greatest barriers, their logic was flawed in
that, if the combined non-Federal funds only approach the COA but do
not equal or exceed it, the Pell Grant remains intact. Indeed, in the
example the commenter provided, if none of the funds are paying for
training--which is the largest or second-largest element in the COA--it
is a given that the combined aid is not close to reaching the COA.
The reasoning above demonstrates both the value and importance of
the new Pell Grant exclusion. When students' COA has been met or
exceeded (with dollars that they do not have to pay back or work for),
the total cost of obtaining their education is covered and more funding
is unnecessary.
Further, the Department notes that the exclusion is related to non-
Federal grant and scholarship aid. The Department wrote in the NPRM
that we also propose to clarify that grant or scholarship assistance
from non-Federal sources does not include sources that Section 480(i)
of the HEA excludes from ``other
[[Page 29273]]
financial assistance.'' We codified this in Sec. 690.5(b), and it
includes tax credits under section 25A of the Internal Revenue Code
(IRC), distributions under section 529 of the IRC or Coverdell
Education Savings Accounts, and emergency financial assistance provided
to students for unexpected expenses that are a component of the cost of
attendance. We do not have the authority to make other exclusions
recommended by the commenter that are not prescribed in statute. The
law does not provide carveouts for State grants or defense worker
education benefits.
The Department takes issue with the commenters' claim that Pell
Grants are no longer ``first-dollar'' aid. This is not the case. Pell
Grants (when not automatically determined according to HEA rules) are
still calculated by subtracting the Student Aid Index from the maximum
Pell Grant for the award year; other aid is not accounted for. What the
new law and regulations establish is that, when students' combined non-
Federal grant and scholarship aid is equal to or exceeds the COA, the
student will receive no Pell Grant. Aid administrators will package
students normally, Pell Grant first and then other aid, and as soon as
it is clear that the non-Federal grants and scholarships will equal or
exceed the COA, the Pell Grant is removed, or the other aid is adjusted
as explained under Sec. 690.80(d). Often, though, as we stated above,
the aid office will be able to determine which students may face this
situation at the outset. Students will not be considered for a Pell
Grant when they receive a ``full ride'' scholarship that covers the
entirety of their COA. It is the case that for the relatively few
students who become ineligible for a Pell Grant because their entire
education costs are met in this way, Federal aid will have been
displaced by private or institutional dollars.
Finally, it is not our understanding that high-need students
frequently receive non-Federal grant aid in excess of the COA ``by
design.'' State and private funders have a strong vested interest in
not exceeding the amount required for students to complete their
education, as it preserves limited funds for other students who do have
need. To the extent that these providers deliberately fund students
over the COA, they will cause them to lose Pell Grant eligibility for
said award year.
It is more likely that funding programs function in the manner that
one State higher education agency described to the Department. They
have programs that provide last-dollar aid to students who receive Pell
Grants and that cover the balance, up to the COA, after the Pell Grant
has been applied. In such a situation, there is no danger to the
student's Pell Grant eligibility because the State grant is in an
amount less than the COA by the value of the Pell Grant.
To provide an illustrative example, a student with a COA of $12,000
receives a $7,000 Pell Grant. The State higher education agency then
provides a $5,000 grant to cover the student's remaining costs. This
procedure has been the case and will continue to be so under the new
rules. But assume that after aid has been awarded and some of it
disbursed that the student receives a $6,000 private scholarship. If
under the State's rules, the student is permitted to keep its grant,
the Pell Grant also remains intact because the combined State grant and
private scholarship is $11,000, which is $1,000 less than the COA. If
the private scholarship was $8,000 and the total of non-Federal aid was
$13,000 and the scholarship could not be adjusted, the school would
need to reduce the amount of the State grant by more than $1,000 (so
that the total is less than $12,000) if it has the authority to do so.
If it can't reduce the State grant and the total cannot otherwise be
brought under $12,000, under Sec. 690.80(d) the entirety of the Pell
Grant would need to be returned. This assumes that Pell Grant dollars
remain to be disbursed. If the entire Pell Grant had been disbursed
when the private scholarship was received, the school would not need to
do anything.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter was opposed to the regulation because they
believed it would harm the neediest of students. By excluding students
from Pell Grant eligibility when their non-Federal grant aid exceeds
cost of attendance, the commenter believed the rule effectively
penalizes low-income students for securing State, institutional, or
private scholarships, and aid they depend on to cover basic living
expenses, which is not fully reflected in cost-of-attendance formulas.
Discussion: As a foundational matter, the Federal student financial
assistance programs are designed to cover educational expenses. As
explained in the previous section, this rule will not deprive Pell
Grant-eligible students of funds needed to cover the cost of their
education. Cost of attendance includes tuition and fees, housing, food,
books, supplies, and several other allowable costs.\9\ If a student
receives non-Federal grant or scholarship assistance that in total is
greater than or equal to the COA, there is no need to be met. If the
student were to receive a Pell Grant in this instance, it would cause
his or her need to be exceeded. For example, a student enrolls in a
one-year program at a university, and the total cost of the program is
$20,000, which includes $2,000 in tuition and fees, $500 in books,
$13,000 in housing, and $4,500 in food. If the student receives a non-
Federal scholarship for $20,000, his entire cost is covered by the non-
Federal scholarship. The student would not be eligible for a Pell Grant
in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Federal Student Aid Handbook--Volume 3, Chapter 2--Cost of
Attendance--<a href="https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook/2025-2026/vol3/ch2-cost-attendance-budget">https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook/2025-2026/vol3/ch2-cost-attendance-budget</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter was concerned about the new rule because
there will be a cliff effect in that students whose other grant aid is
one dollar less than the COA will receive a full Pell Grant, while
those whose grant aid is one dollar over the COA will get no Pell
Grant. As the commenter observed, ``This approach is inequitable and
may discourage institutions, States, and foundations from offering
generous scholarships.'' The commenter suggested a more gradual
approach to reducing Pell Grant dollars or, if the law does not allow
for that, the Department should ``implement oversight measures to
prevent manipulation of scholarship amounts.''
Discussion: The commenter touches on the possible gaming that we
raised in our directed question about this issue. As we note above,
however, the new regulation remains as drafted in the NPRM because we
believe that is the surest reading of the statute. The Department will
consider possible oversight measures in the future if the potential
problem we have foreseen actually arises.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter was concerned that the flexibility afforded
to schools in determining their COA could ``result in inconsistent or
inaccurate calculation of non-tuition expenses for short-term programs,
particularly those related to basic needs.'' If COA determinations do
not reflect the true cost, students could face unmet financial need. To
address this concern, the commenter asked that ``the Department either
(a) remove this provision for the Workforce Pell Grant program or (b)
revise it to replace `cost of attendance' with `tuition' in the context
of Workforce Pell Grant.'' Another commenter similarly asserted that
COA budgets are often understated,
[[Page 29274]]
leaving the possibility that students have unmet costs.
Discussion: Institutions have long had considerable discretion, as
outlined by the law, in how they create their COA budgets, and those do
include non-tuition expenses. As noted above, the use of COA is
intended to cover the complete cost for a student to attend the
educational program. However, the Department cannot correct for what
may be inconsistent approaches from one school to the next that are
allowable under the law. In general, schools are incentivized to ensure
that their COA does not leave unmet financial need; doing otherwise
puts students in stressful financial situations that distract them from
their program of study and that they feel obliged to rectify, such as
by requesting a PJ adjustment. When students believe that their budgets
are inadequate, they are able to request PJ adjustments to them, as we
explain above, but such adjustments are intended for the special
circumstances of individual students and not as a general corrective
for COA budgets that are lacking. Also, the Department's oversight of
PJ discourages its overuse.
As for the suggestions, the HEA does not allow for revising the new
provision or excluding eligible workforce programs from it. Moreover,
it is not clear how the suggestion under (b) to replace COA with
tuition in the context of Workforce Pell Grants would help since that
would involve reducing the amount at which other grant aid would cause
the student to lose Pell Grant eligibility.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that the treatment of Workforce Pell
Grants received by students who are simultaneously receiving employer-
paid educational assistance under IRC Sec. 127 (up to $5,250 annually
excluded from income) is unclear in the proposed rule. The commenter
asked, ``If an employer's Sec. 127 educational assistance plan covers
the full cost of an employee's Workforce Pell Grant program, must the
institution return the Workforce Pell Grant?'' The commenter requested
that:
<bullet> the final rule contains explicit guidance on the
interaction between Workforce Pell Grants and IRC Sec. 127 employer
educational assistance,
<bullet> employer educational assistance not be counted as non-
Federal grant or scholarship assistance for purposes of the Pell Grant
exclusion rule, and
<bullet> the Department coordinate with the IRS and Treasury to
ensure that students receiving employer-sponsored Workforce Pell Grant
program training can stack Sec. 127 benefits and Pell Grants without
losing eligibility for either.
Discussion: Employer-provided educational assistance counts as non-
Federal scholarship aid for the purpose of the Pell Grant exclusion.
There is no provision in the law to exclude that type of assistance,
and, as we note above, the Department is not at liberty to exclude it
from counting as one of the many types of non-Federal grants and
scholarships students can receive. It would be impossible for the
Department to attempt to provide an exhaustive list here of all types
of relevant aid.
As for students losing eligibility for employer-provided education
assistance, nothing in this rulemaking necessitates that outcome; it is
up to employers whether they will provide that aid. The new regulations
will solely impose Pell Grant ineligibility in those cases when the COA
is covered or exceeded by non-Federal grants or scholarships. See the
above discussion regarding why this still leaves students entirely able
to pay for their education. Also, in cases where students in workforce
programs have their whole COA paid for with, for example, employer
assistance, their limited Pell Grant eligibility is preserved for any
later programs that they might enroll in, such as a bachelor's degree
program.
Changes: None.
Comments: Another commenter also expressed concern that employer-
provided tuition benefits would unduly cause students/employees to lose
Pell Grants that typically cover expenses such as transportation and
housing. They suggested that the Department (1) exempt employer-
provided tuition assistance from the non-Federal aid exclusion; (2)
provide clear guidance distinguishing tuition assistance from wages;
(3) clarify how partial employer tuition assistance should be treated
in Pell Grant eligibility calculations; and (4) permit students to
remain eligible for Pell Grants for non-tuition components of the COA
such as transportation and housing, even where employer-provided
assistance fully covers tuition cost.
Discussion: As noted above, employer-provided tuition assistance
would count as non-Federal scholarship aid. Such tuition assistance is
not wages, nor do wages count in the calculation for determining this
new Pell Grant ineligibility provision. Partial tuition assistance by
definition would not make a student Pell Grant-ineligible since it
would not cover the COA. Finally, in situations where the employer-
provided assistance fully covers tuition but no other elements of the
COA, the student would remain eligible for Pell Grants unless there
were other non-Federal grant or scholarship aid that, combined with the
employer assistance, equaled or exceeded the COA.
Changes: None.
Pell Grant Ineligibility Due to Non-Federal Grant or Scholarship
Assistance (Sec. 690.80(d))
Comments: One commenter asked for guidance regarding an example
they provided involving subsequent ISIR transactions that show
increased Pell Grant eligibility after funds have already been
disbursed and packaging completed. The example they provided described
a student with a $20,000 COA that receives $18,000 in non-Federal grant
aid and $3,000 in Pell Grant funds, which are fully disbursed. A
subsequent non-Federal scholarship of $2,000 brings the total of such
aid to $20,000. A later ISIR transaction then increases the student's
Pell eligibility to $5,000. The commenter requested that the Department
clarify what happens in this scenario.
Discussion: Because the late-arriving scholarship increases the
total non-Federal grant aid so that it equals the COA, and an
additional transaction was made that increased the student's Pell Grant
by $2,000, Sec. 690.80(d) applies. The school can reduce the non-
Federal aid to below the COA and award the additional Pell funds. If it
cannot or chooses not to do so, the entire Pell Grant must be returned,
and the student's COA would be met by the $20,000 in non-Federal aid.
If there had been no subsequent transaction that resulted in
additional Pell Grant eligibility--all the Pell Grant funds had been
disbursed already--the school would not have needed to do anything when
the additional non-Federal scholarship arrived even though it caused
the total amount of such aid to equal the COA.
Changes: None.
Eligible Workforce Programs
Date, Extent, Duration, and Consequence of Eligibility (Sec.
600.10(c))
Comments: A few commenters stated that a risk of the proposed
framework is that institutional eligibility for an eligible workforce
program bypasses the accreditor quality assurance process because the
Secretary's program review does not incorporate accreditor assessment
of program quality.
Discussion: As discussed in the NPRM, an eligible institution must
be able to demonstrate that each program (including eligible workforce
programs, collectively or individually) is formally
[[Page 29275]]
accredited and included within its grant of accreditation. The
Department does not require the accrediting agency to approve each
eligible workforce program individually, and an accrediting agency
recognized by the Department may establish its own internal processes
regarding the approval of eligible workforce programs, which must
follow its established review procedures for substantive changes set
forth in Sec. 602.22. If an accrediting agency decides to approve one
or more eligible workforce programs separately or based on established
policies that require eligible institutions to make a substantive
change request to add an eligible workforce program, the accrediting
agency may do so. Such approval may come before or after approval by
the Governor (but must be provided prior to Department approval). There
is not a need to add additional regulatory language requiring
accreditation because existing regulations cover this requirement.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters stated that the current proposal
unnecessarily restricts program eligibility to accredited institutions
participating in title IV, HEA programs which risks excluding a large
segment of high-performing workforce training providers already
validated through State workforce systems. Several commenters urged the
Department to allow State-approved Eligible Training Provider List
(ETPL) programs to qualify for Workforce Pell Grant eligibility,
regardless of institutional accreditation status, provided they meet
all other programmatic and accountability requirements. A different
commenter stated that ETPL programs offered at eligible institutions
should automatically receive Governor and Department approval. Other
commenters asked that ineligible organizations that provide social
services to communities, such as after-school care, healthcare, and
security, be Pell Grant eligible.
Discussion: We decline the commenters' recommendations. The
Department does not have authority to create a separate eligibility
pathway or designate additional categories of programs outside of the
Workforce Pell Grant statutes. A student (Sec. 668.32), program (Sec.
668.8), and postsecondary institution (34 CFR 600) must meet all Pell
Grant eligibility requirements.
Section 102(a) of the HEA defines institutions of higher education
eligible to disburse title IV, HEA assistance to enrolled students.
Also, paragraph (a)(5) of section 101 states that such institutions
must be ``. . . accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting
agency or association, or if not so accredited, is an institution that
has been granted preaccreditation status by such an agency or
association that has been recognized by the Secretary for the granting
of preaccreditation status, and the Secretary has determined that there
is satisfactory assurance that the institution will meet the
accreditation standards of such an agency or association within a
reasonable time.''
We acknowledge that there may be similarities between programs on a
State ETPL and eligible workforce programs; however, there are also
differences between the statutory requirements for the two types of
programs. WIOA, which includes the ETPL provisions, and the HEA, which
includes provisions for Pell Grant eligibility and eligible workforce
programs, are different statutes. Governors and the Department must
ensure that a program on a State ETPL meets all the requirements under
the HEA to become an eligible workforce program.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked if there would be pilot opportunities
or phased implementation for institutions and requested the Department
clarify this.
Discussion: No, there will not be pilot opportunities or phased
implementation. All institutions wishing to offer an eligible workforce
program will have to follow the same procedures and processes outlined
in regulations.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that many institutional accreditors
do not currently include noncredit programs in their scope of review.
This creates an ``accreditation bottleneck,'' as the commenter termed
it, and noted this creates a structural barrier that may prevent
otherwise high-quality programs from accessing Pell Grants for eligible
workforce programs. The commenter recommended that the Department
explicitly encourage institutional accreditors to develop expedited
review processes for eligible workforce programs and acknowledge the
role that specialized programmatic accreditors can play in providing
program-level quality assurance for workforce training in emerging
fields. The commenter stated that the Department's own Fund for the
Improvement of Postsecondary Education grant has invested in building
this capacity.
Discussion: While the Department cannot require additional
structure outside the statutory framework, we will consider how we
might provide sub-regulatory guidance that helps accrediting agencies
develop the expertise necessary to fulfill their role in ensuring the
quality of eligible workforce programs in a timely manner.
The Department announced the Accreditation, Innovation, and
Modernization (AIM) committee on January 27, 2026.\10\ Those interested
in the regulatory process related to accrediting agencies may wish to
follow the rulemaking process.\11\ Additionally, the Department has
taken administrative steps to clarify and streamline the process for
new accrediting agencies to enter the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ AIM Federal Register notice--<a href="https://www.Federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/27/2026-01620/intent-to-establish-negotiated-rulemaking-committee">https://www.Federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/27/2026-01620/intent-to-establish-negotiated-rulemaking-committee</a>.
\11\ AIM website--<a href="https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/higher-education-laws-and-policy/higher-education-policy/negotiated-rulemaking-higher-education-2026">https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/higher-education-laws-and-policy/higher-education-policy/negotiated-rulemaking-higher-education-2026</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter urged the Department to go beyond the
preamble and include clear regulatory expectations that accreditors
must review Workforce Pell Grant programs--including non-credit
programs--and update their scopes of recognition accordingly. The
commenter stated that doing so will close a critical oversight gap,
strengthen program quality, and ensure that this new expansion of Pell
Grant eligibility is implemented with the rigor and accountability that
students and taxpayers deserve. The commenter mentioned the Department
could mirror requirements under the prison education regulations in 34
CFR Subpart P or require accreditor approval of the first three
eligible workforce programs that an institution offers.
Discussion: We decline the commenter's suggestion because the
authorizing statute does not specify how accrediting agencies should
review programs. We believe that an accrediting agency is equipped to
establish its own internal processes regarding the approval of eligible
workforce programs. There is a specific provision in the authorizing
statute for prison education programs that requires consideration of
accrediting agencies: an institution is prohibited from offering a
prison education program if ``during the 5 years preceding the date of
the determination'' the institution was subject to ``any adverse action
by the institution's accrediting agency or association.'' The
Department also notes that we are required to approve every eligible
workforce program, unlike prison education programs.
Changes: None.
[[Page 29276]]
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department explore
ways to better align the eligible workforce program and PEP approval
processes to reduce duplicative burden on experienced correctional
education providers. The commenter stated that the Department should
consider integrating the eligible workforce program approval into the
existing PEP application.
Discussion: The Department declines to combine the eligible
workforce program and PEP process because they are two distinct program
types with unique sets of statutory and regulatory requirements.
Changes: None.
Limitations on Remedial Coursework That Is Eligible for Title IV, HEA
Program Assistance (Sec. 668.20(b) and (g))
Comments: One commenter thanked the Department for allowing
remedial coursework for clock-hour programs and asked that we codify
that allowance in regulation.
Discussion: In the preamble to the NPRM, the Department proposed
that an eligible institution may not take into account, when
calculating title IV, HEA program awards, any noncredit or reduced
credit remedial coursework (including a course in English as a second
language) when determining enrollment intensity and COA for a student
enrolled in an eligible workforce program, as defined under 34 CFR
690.92, that is offered in credit hours.
After further internal discussion, the Department determined that,
normally, programs offered in clock hours may include remedial
coursework up to the thresholds outlined in 34 CFR 668.20(e). Our
proposed language limited the prohibition on remedial coursework to
programs offered in credit hours. The WFTCA states that ``. . . the
provisions of subsection (d)(2) shall not be applicable to eligible
workforce programs. . .''. Section 401 (d)(2) of the HEA states
noncredit, remedial, and study abroad courses can be included in a
student's Pell Grant eligibility. Therefore, these types of courses
cannot be included in a student's Pell Grant eligibility in an eligible
workforce program. Nothing in Section 401 (d)(2) differentiates between
credit or clock-hour programs. We do not believe the statute allows the
Department to limit the prohibition on remedial coursework to only
credit-hour programs. The Department clarifies in the final rule that
eligible workforce programs offered in credit hours or clock hours are
prohibited from including remedial coursework in a student's
eligibility.
Changes: The regulations will revise Sec. 668.20(g) to clarify
that an institution may not take into account any noncredit, remedial
or reduced credit remedial course for a student enrolled in an eligible
workforce program. The regulations will no longer distinguish between
credit or clock hour programs; however, they will continue to permit
consideration of clock-hour, non-remedial coursework in both types of
programs.
Comments: A few commenters requested that the Department clarify in
the final rule or sub-regulatory guidance that clock-hour programs are
not subject to the prohibition on institutions considering noncredit or
partial credit remedial coursework when calculating title IV, HEA
program award amounts.
Discussion: We stated in the NPRM--``The Department clarified
during negotiated rulemaking that the prohibition on noncredit courses
is not in reference to programs offered using clock hours.'' Eligible
workforce programs can be offered in credit hours or clock hours.
Neither the statute nor the regulations prevent a non-credit clock hour
program from qualifying as an eligible workforce program. However, the
statute and regulations do prohibit an institution from considering
remedial coursework in a clock hour program when determining a
student's eligibility for title IV, HEA program funds.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter asked the Department to clarify the level
of non-credit to credit articulation that is required for eligibility.
Other commenters asked for additional guidance regarding which
noncredit programs would be considered eligible workforce programs.
Discussion: These regulations do not require an institution to
perform noncredit to credit articulation for every eligible workforce
program. However, the rule does prohibit remedial coursework, including
coursework that leads to partial credit or coursework that does not
lead to academic credit, from being included in an eligible workforce
program, as described in the statute. For practical purposes, this
means that an institution cannot include in its calculation of a
student's eligibility for Pell Grant funds any coursework not required
for completion of the program. The only coursework that can make up the
eligible workforce program is the coursework that is a part of the
formal program of study.
In order to qualify as eligible workforce programs, clock hour
programs would need to fulfill the normal requirements for program
eligibility as well as the new and unique requirements for eligible
workforce programs. The normal requirements for program eligibility
require, among other things, that the clock hour program lead to a
recognized credential conferred by the eligible institution. Therefore,
as long as the clock hour program meets all the applicable
requirements, including leading to a credential provided by the
institution, it does not have to confer credit in order to qualify as
an eligible workforce program.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters asked the Department to provide clear
pathways for noncredit, employer-led programs to qualify, particularly
where they demonstrate strong workforce outcomes.
Another commenter stated that prohibited programs that are fully
noncredit but that lead to licensure should be eligible for Pell
Grants. The commenter stated that individuals who complete the
noncredit programs are fully licensed and go right into the workforce.
Credit is not necessary to obtain employment in their chosen field.
A different commenter stated that this provision could limit access
for students who need basic skills, ESL, or contextualized learning to
succeed.
Discussion: A noncredit employer-led program cannot be Pell Grant
eligible. First, the program cannot be employer-led. An eligible
institution (e.g., college or university) can enter into a written
arrangement as prescribed in Sec. 668.5 with an ineligible
organization such as an employer (see section Sec. 668.5 for more
information), but the employer cannot offer an eligible workforce
program. The HEA requires a program to be offered by an eligible
institution that is accredited and authorized by a State, and it
requires completion of the program to ultimately result in the
conferral of academic credit, either at the institution or at another
eligible institution. The Department has no authority to extend
eligibility more broadly to other providers.
Changes: None.
Student Eligibility (Sec. 668.32(c))
Comments: One commenter stated that the prohibition against an
individual with a graduate credential receiving a Pell Grant to enroll
in an eligible workforce program is clearly stated in the statute. The
commenter wanted to know how reporting would work operationally. The
commenter stated that questions on the FAFSA are confusing and there is
no FAFSA question about graduate credentials.
[[Page 29277]]
Discussion: The Department is working to update our systems and
processes to account for eligible workforce programs. Although we
cannot provide more information about operations within this rule or
its preamble, we commit to releasing guidance to the community as
necessary.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that the Department should let
eligible workforce programs operate within standard-term rules if they
are operating under Pell Grant Formula 1 or 2.
Discussion: Regarding Pell Grant formulas and program type or
academic calendar requirements, the commenter is correct that under
Sec. 668.4 and Sec. 690.63 there are specific limitations that
prevent Pell Grant formulas 1, 2 and 5 from being used with workforce
programs due to length and coursework restrictions. For example, an
eligible workforce program cannot use Pell Grant formula 1, even if it
contains a standard term, since Pell Grant formula 1 requires a program
to consist of at least 30 instructional weeks in duration. Similarly,
Pell Grant formula 2 cannot be utilized since that formula would
require two standard terms to exist within an eligible workforce
program which cannot occur due to program length restrictions. And of
course, Pell Grant Formula 5 cannot be applied since that pertains to
correspondence programs and workforce programs are prohibited from
containing any correspondence courses.
Therefore, when determining Pell Grant award amounts for eligible
workforce programs, institutions will be required to use Pell Grant
formula 3 for term-based programs and Pell Grant formula 4 for nonterm
credit-hour and clock-hour programs. In addition, though it is possible
to have a single term workforce program, it is important to keep in
mind that under Sec. 690.63(f), a single Pell Grant disbursement may
not exceed 50 percent of a Pell Grant annual award. If this occurs, an
institution would be required to make at least two disbursements.
These limitations exist because no allowances or exceptions were
established in the WFTCA for eligible workforce programs when using the
existing Pell Grant formulas. With that said, it is important to
remember that an institution is permitted to have multiple types of
academic calendars including term-based and nonterm based programs and
can use different Pell Grant formulas with separate academic programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters expressed support for allowing
bachelor's degree holders to receive Workforce Pell Grants.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenters for their support.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended prohibiting individuals who
have bachelor's degrees from receiving a Pell Grant to enroll in an
eligible workforce program. The commenter stated that extending
eligibility to bachelor's degree holders represents a significant
departure from the long-standing statutory prohibition. The commenter
also noted the risks of expanding eligibility, particularly at a time
when the Pell Grant program faces a projected shortfall and resources
must be carefully targeted to those with the greatest need.
Discussion: We decline the commenter's recommendation. The WFTCA
makes specific reference to the prohibition of an individual accepted
for enrollment in a program of study that leads to a graduate
credential or an individual that has already obtained a graduate
credential. The statute is silent on bachelor's degrees, therefore,
without a clear prohibition, individuals with bachelor's degrees may
receive a Pell Grant for the specific purpose of enrolling in an
eligible workforce program. We are excited to provide individuals with
bachelor's degrees the opportunity to reskill or upskill to better
compete on a national and global scale.
We disagree with the commenter's assertion that extending
eligibility to bachelor's degree holders represents a significant
departure from the long-standing statutory prohibition. Currently,
under Section 401(d)(4) of the HEA and Sec. 690.6(c) students with a
bachelor's degree can receive a Federal Pell Grant for a post-
baccalaureate teacher certification program.
The Department responded to concerns about the projected shortfall
under the ``General Comments'' section above.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters encouraged the Department to adopt
additional safeguards to disaggregate outcomes data by requiring
separate reporting for bachelor's degree holders and non-bachelor's
degree holders. Another commenter stated that the Department should
require institutions to report the percentage of students in a program
who hold a bachelor's degree as a transparency metric. This would allow
policymakers, students, and the public to assess whether eligible
workforce programs are delivering real value to the intended
population. In addition, the commenter stated that the Department
should establish clear thresholds to prevent institutions from
disproportionately enrolling individuals with prior degrees.
Discussion: Neither the statute nor the regulations contain
provisions that require such disaggregation. We decline to create
additional burden for the Department and institutions. Eligible
workforce programs are not only subject to a value-added earnings
metric, but also job placement and completion rate calculations. Those
outcome metrics represent a higher standard than most other programs,
including direct assessment programs, eligible career pathway programs,
and prison education programs.
Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters recommended allowing individuals who
already hold graduate degrees to participate in Workforce Pell Grants.
Discussion: The statute does not permit the Department to adopt the
commenters' suggestion. Section 401(k)(2)(B) of the HEA, added by
Section 83002(a) of the WFTCA, states that a student is not eligible
for a Pell Grant in an eligible workforce program if the student is
enrolled, or accepted for enrollment, in a program of study that leads
to a graduate credential, or if the student has obtained a graduate
credential.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that the Department must explicitly
codify, through regulatory or sub-regulatory guidance, that
postbaccalaureate teacher licensure and certification are not
considered graduate credential programs for the purposes of this rule.
Discussion: Postbaccalaureate teacher licensure and certification
are not considered graduate credentials. We stated in the NPRM that a
graduate credential includes, but is not limited to, a graduate degree
such as a master's degree or doctoral degree, a first-professional
degree such as a Doctor of Medicine (MD), Doctor of Dental Surgery
(DDS), or Juris Doctor (JD), a graduate certificate (including a
postgraduate certificate), or another professional credential that is
above the undergraduate level. A graduate credential does not include
an undergraduate post-baccalaureate certificate.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that the Department should clarify
in the final rule that students enrolled in a program meeting all
Federal criteria under Sec. 690.92 are eligible for a Pell Grant
retroactively to the start of the
[[Page 29278]]
payment period in which they enrolled, provided State certification is
completed within that payment period.
Discussion: Students become eligible for a Pell Grant in the
payment period during which the workforce program is approved by the
Secretary.
Changes: None.
Duration of Student Eligibility (Sec. 690.6(a) and (f))
Comments: One commenter stated that eligible workforce programs can
be a successful pathway for identifying students that will successfully
graduate from a four-year program, especially in STEM. The commenter
recommended adding a requirement that students with less than a
bachelor's degree have their ACT or SAT recorded and reported. Students
with test scores above the average nationwide test scores of students
attending four-year public institution should then be advised that they
have the ability to complete a four-year college degree.
Discussion: The Department does not have the authority to require
students to report their ACT or SAT scores as part of enrolling in an
eligible workforce program. The SAT and ACT exams are generally used as
part of college admissions standards. The Department has limited
authority in an institution's admissions criteria. The Department's
authority is generally limited to student eligibility for the programs
that we administer, such as the Pell Grant program. For more
information on student eligibility for a Pell Grant, please review
Volume 1 of the most recent FSA Handbook.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ FSA Handbook, Volume 1--<a href="https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook">https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Federal Pell Grant Payments From More Than One Institution (Sec.
690.11)
Comments: A few commenters recommended adding language to Sec.
690.11(b) to clarify that students receiving a Pell Grant to enroll in
an eligible workforce program may still receive non-title IV aid and
support. One commenter stated that these supports include public
benefits such as housing assistance, SNAP, TANF, WIOA, institutional
emergency aid, and private or State grants and scholarships. The
commenter also recommended explicitly stating that students in eligible
workforce programs remain eligible for wraparound supports, such as
food pantries, housing assistance, transportation, childcare, and case
management, on the same basis as other students.
Discussion: The Department does not have authority over SNAP, TANF,
WIOA, or wraparound supports; therefore, we cannot speak to an
individual's continued eligibility for those programs if the student
receives a Pell Grant.
The Department notes that there is a prohibition on receipt of Pell
Grant funds under Sec. 690.5 if a student receives non-Federal grant
or scholarship assistance that meets or exceeds the student's cost of
attendance. SNAP, TANF and WIOA are Federal programs, therefore, a
student's receipt of aid from those programs would not affect a
student's eligibility for a Pell Grant. We explained in the preamble to
the NPRM that the regular exclusions from ``other financial
assistance'' enumerated in Section 480(i) of the HEA would not be
treated as non-Federal grant or scholarship assistance under this
provision. For example, in Section 480(i), the NPRM states ``emergency
financial assistance provided to the student for unexpected expenses
that are a component of the student's COA, and not otherwise considered
when the determination of the student's need is made . . .'' is not
considered grant or scholarship assistance. The Department does not
have the authority to exclude other types of non-Federal grant or
scholarship assistance not specifically stated in the statute.
Finally, a student can receive non-title IV support such as a
private grant, State grant, or private scholarship when enrolling in an
eligible workforce program. We encourage students to seek out resources
that will assist them in their educational endeavors; however, if the
student's total non-Federal grants and scholarship assistance for an
award year equal or exceed the student's cost of attendance, the
student will not be eligible to receive a Pell Grant.
Changes: None.
Scope and Purpose (Sec. 690.90)
Comments: One commenter stated that the Department should
reconsider the blanket exclusion of eligible workforce programs from
the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) and
Federal Work-Study (FWS) programs. The commenter argued that this would
help ensure that these programs provide low-debt pathways towards a
credential.
Discussion: The Department does not have the authority to make such
a change. The statute (Section 401(k) of the HEA) clearly indicates
that an individual that enrolls in an eligible workforce program is
eligible for a Pell Grant but does not refer to any other title IV, HEA
program. Program eligibility requirements for all other title IV, HEA
programs are described under Section 481(b) of the HEA, and that
section requires additional weeks and hours for academic programs to
qualify.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters were concerned that defining eligible
workforce programs as only eligible to participate in the Pell Grant
program will significantly hamper students' ability to access and
afford such programs, which undermines Congressional intent. One
commenter requested that the Department:
<bullet> Disclose the number of institutions and programs that
participate in the title IV, HEA programs under the existing short-term
Direct Loan program provisions;
<bullet> Advise Congress on technical correction language that
could satisfactorily merge eligible workforce programs and short-term
Direct Loan programs and also consider making students in such programs
also eligible for other title IV, HEA programs to enhance
affordability; and
<bullet> Write the final rule to automatically be amended to merge
eligible workforce programs with short-term Direct Loan programs in the
case of Congressional action without requiring additional rulemaking.
Another commenter requested that the Department add the following
language to Sec. 690.90: ``In some instances, a student attending an
eligible workforce program may also be eligible to borrow under the
William D. Ford Direct Loan Program if the workforce program
simultaneously meets the criteria applied to an eligible short-term
educational program under 34 CFR 668.8(d)-(g).''
Discussion: As of April 2, 2026, there are 63 unduplicated schools
offering short-term programs qualifying for Direct Loan funds and 80
such programs altogether.
As discussed in the NPRM,\13\ the Department believes that allowing
programs that include between 300 and 599 clock hours to qualify for
both the Pell Grant and Direct Loan programs would run counter to the
intent of the statutory provisions of workforce programs, which build
on an existing framework for funding job training programs under WIOA
and have alternative sources of funding. We reject the commenter's
suggestion to add language to the regulation that would permit an
eligible workforce program to qualify for Direct Loan eligibility if it
meets the requirements under Sec. 668.8(d)-(g). The completion and
[[Page 29279]]
placement rate methodology for eligible workforce programs and short-
term Direct Loan programs is different, and the methodology as it
pertains to Direct Loan programs is out of the scope of these
regulations. We will provide flexibility to Governors regarding the
calculation of those rates for eligible workforce programs until the
2029-30 award year to encourage institutional offering of eligible
workforce programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 91 FR 11389
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We decline the commenter's suggestion regarding advising Congress
on a technical correction because we do not agree with the
recommendation for the reasons described in the preamble to the NPRM.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters stated that institutions or the
Department should be required to provide clear, accessible advisement
on the short- and long-term implications of Pell Grant usage, including
effects on lifetime eligibility limits.
Discussion: Per the NPRM, the Department already provides
information on lifetime eligibility limits, usually referred to as the
Pell Grant ``Lifetime Eligibility Used'' (Pell LEU) to all students, so
a disclosure specific to eligible workforce programs is not necessary.
Comments on the FAFSA Submission Summary inform students of their
approximate Pell Grant usage at 50 percent intervals. For example, a
student between 100 percent and 150 percent would see a comment reading
``The limit to the total amount of Federal Pell Grants that a student
may receive is the equivalent of six school years. Based upon
information reported to the National Student Loan Data System
(NSLDS[supreg]) database by the schools you have attended, you have
received Pell Grants for the equivalent of between one and one and one-
half years.'' Second, the Department is concerned that a disclosure
such as this could be perceived as a warning to students not to enroll
or continue in their program rather than solely an indication of the
years of Pell Grants they have remaining. The Department prefers that
students work directly with their institution's financial aid offices
regarding their Federal financial aid eligibility.
Changes: None.
Definitions--Cohort Period (Sec. 690.91)
Comments: One commenter stated that the cohort period is
insufficient because: (1) security clearance processing averages 12-24
months, (2) DOD and DARPA funded programs often use multi-year bridge
periods between training completion and full performance employment and
(3) defense-track graduates may accept lower initial-year compensation
in exchange for career trajectory positions whose long-term value is
not captured in short cohort windows.
Discussion: We decline the commenter's suggestion because the
statute clearly defines the cohort period. Section 481(b)(3)(B) of the
HEA, added by Section 83002(b) of the WFTCA, states that for each award
year, the total amount of the published tuition and fees of an eligible
workforce program for such year may not exceed the ``value-added
earnings'' of students who received Federal financial aid and who
completed the program three years prior to the award year.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department measure
outcomes based on the time from individual enrollment or completion
because adult learners often follow nonlinear educational pathways,
requiring accountability frameworks that recognize stop-out and re-
entry patterns.
Discussion: We must decline the commenter's suggestion. Section
481(b)(3) of the HEA requires an analysis of earnings for individuals
who completed their eligible workforce programs, ``. . . 3 years prior
to the award year, as such earnings are determined. . .''. Therefore,
the Department cannot make such a change as the current timeline is a
statutory requirement.
Changes: None.
Definitions--In-demand industry sector or occupation (Sec. 690.91)
Comments: One commenter requested greater clarity on this
definition. The commenter was concerned that some States may use these
terms as entry barriers and artificially limit Pell Grants to favored
occupations.
Discussion: We decline to add additional regulatory text because
Section 481(b)(3)(B) of the HEA, as added by Section 83002(b) of the
WFTCA, states that the term in-demand sector or occupation has the
meaning given in Section 3 of WIOA. We have used the exact definition
in WIOA in these final regulations.
We believe that Governors are very familiar with the phrase ``in-
demand industry sector or occupation'' because they are required to
identify those occupations under their WIOA State plans. A WIOA State
plan is a plan submitted to the DOL and the Department by each US State
and other qualifying areas that outlines its workforce development
system's four-year strategy.
Ultimately, under Sec. 690.93(a), Governors certify programs prior
to final approval by the Department for Pell Grant eligibility. The
Department does not seek to limit a Governor's authority to make
decisions about in-demand occupations in their States. Under Sec.
690.93(b), Governors are required to publicly publish the methodology
they used to determine which occupations in their States are in-demand.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that each Governor will apply the
definition of ``in-demand industry sector or occupation'' differently.
This will result in many different definitions of what constitutes an
in-demand occupation for eligible workforce programs.
Discussion: Section 481(b)(3)(B) of the HEA, as added by Section
83002(b) of the WFTCA, states that the term in-demand sector or
occupation has the meaning given in Section 3 of WIOA. The Department
will not define ``in-demand industry sector or occupation'' beyond the
WIOA definition.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that the Department should ensure
the definition reflects regional labor market conditions, including the
use of local labor market data and employer engagement processes.
Discussion: The definition already describes exactly what the
commenter is requesting--(1) An industry sector that has a substantial
current or potential impact (including through jobs that lead to
economic self-sufficiency and opportunities for advancement) on the
State, regional, or local economy, as appropriate, and that contributes
to the growth or stability of other supporting businesses, or the
growth of other industry sectors; or (2) An occupation that currently
has or is projected to have a number of positions (including positions
that lead to economic self-sufficiency and opportunities for
advancement) in an industry sector so as to have a significant impact
on the State, regional, or local economy, as appropriate. As such, the
Department will not make a change to the regulations here as what the
commenter has requested is already in place.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter stated that the definition of ``high-skill,
high-wage, or in-demand'' occupations varies significantly by region.
Rural labor markets differ substantially from metropolitan areas, and a
uniform Federal standard may not accurately reflect regional workforce
realities. They stated that flexibility in defining in-
[[Page 29280]]
demand occupations at the State or regional level is critical.
Another commenter stated that the Department should also provide
baseline Federal guidance to promote greater consistency across States
while preserving flexibility to reflect regional economic conditions.
Without these updates, reliance on static or outdated labor market
projections may result in misalignment between training programs and
actual workforce needs.
Discussion: The Department is required by statute to use the
definition in WIOA. The HEA does not prescribe specific in-demand
industry sector or occupations, but instead it gives Governors the
flexibility to determine what those occupations are based on the
definition.
Changes: None.
Definitions--Governor (Sec. 690.91)
Comments: A few commenters had concerns with the definition of
``Governor'' as it relates to Tribal Colleges and Universities. One
commenter demanded that the Department conduct Tribal consultation
under Executive Order 13175 before the final rule is published, given
that Tribal governments are among the entities that would be required
to process program approvals and that tribal colleges may seek
workforce program eligibility.
Another commenter requested that the Department change the
regulatory language from ``(2) If an institution is located on Tribal
lands, the Tribal government'' to ``(2) The chartering Tribal
Government(s) for a Tribal College or University, as defined in section
316(b)(3)(A) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1059c(b)(3)(A))'' because this definition takes into account instances
where a consortium of Tribes may be the chartering entities for a
Tribal college or university rather than a single Tribe. The commenter
believes that their proposed definition will ensure that all Tribal
colleges and universities fall under the same regulatory structure for
participation in the Workforce Pell Grant program and that they may
work with their chartering Tribal Government(s).
The commenter also requested that the Department consider a
requirement for a Tribal government to have the choice to consult with
either a State board or a designated entity within their Tribal
community. The commenter also requested that the Department provide
maximum flexibility to Tribal governments to determine what constitutes
sufficient consultation.
Discussion: The Department notes that Executive Order 13175 states,
``is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive
branch, and is not intended to create any right, benefit, or trust
responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a
party against the United Sta
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on May 19, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.