34 C.F.R. § 668.84

Fine proceedings

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Scope and consequences. (1) The Secretary may impose a fine of up to $71,545 1 per violation on a participating institution or third-party servicer that—

1 As adjusted in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended (28 U.S.C. 2461 note).

(i) Violates any statutory provision of or applicable to Title IV of the HEA, any regulatory provision prescribed under that statutory authority, or any applicable special arrangement, agreement, or limitation entered into under the authority of statutes applicable to Title IV of the HEA; or

(ii) Substantially misrepresents the nature of—

(A) In the case of an institution, its educational program, its financial charges, or the employability of its graduates; or

(B) In the case of a third-party servicer, as applicable, the educational program, financial charges, or employability of the graduates of any institution that contracts with the servicer.

(2) If the Secretary begins a fine proceeding against a third-party servicer, the Secretary also may begin a fine, limitation, suspension, or termination proceeding against any institution under whose contract a third-party servicer commits the violation.

(b) Procedures. (1) A designated department official begins a fine proceeding by sending the institution or servicer, as applicable, a notice by certified mail, return receipt requested. In the case of a fine proceeding against a third-party servicer, the official also sends the notice to each institution that is affected by the alleged violations identified as the basis for the fine action, and, to the extent possible, to each institution that contracts with the servicer for the same service affected by the violation. This notice—

(i) Informs the institution or servicer of the Secretary's intent to fine the institution or servicer, as applicable, and the amount of the fine and identifies the alleged violations that constitute the basis for the action;

(ii) Specifies the proposed effective date of the fine, which is at least 20 days from mailing of the notice of intent;

(iii) Informs the institution or servicer that the fine will not be effective on the date specified in the notice if the designated department official receives from the institution or servicer, as applicable, by that date a written request for a hearing or written material indicating why the fine should not be imposed; and

(iv) In the case of a fine proceeding against a third-party servicer, informs each institution that is affected by the alleged violations of the consequences of the action to the institution.

(2) If the institution or servicer does not request a hearing but submits written material, the designated department official, after considering that material, notifies the institution or, in the case of a third-party servicer, the servicer and each institution affected by the alleged violations that—

(i) The fine will not be imposed; or

(ii) The fine is imposed as of a specified date, and in a specified amount.

(3) If the institution or servicer requests a hearing by the time specified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, the designated department official transmits the request for hearing and response to the Office of Hearings and Appeals, which sets the date and the place. The date is at least 15 days after the designated department official receives the request.

(4) A hearing official conducts a hearing in accordance with § 668.89.

(c) Expedited proceedings. With the approval of the hearing official and the consent of the designated department official and the institution or servicer, any time schedule specified in this section may be shortened.

[59 FR 22446, Apr. 29, 1994, as amended at 67 FR 69655, Nov. 18, 2002; 82 FR 6257, Jan. 19, 2017; 83 FR 2065, Jan. 15, 2018; 84 FR 974, Feb. 1, 2019; 85 FR 2036, Jan. 14, 2020; 86 FR 7977, Feb. 3, 2021; 87 FR 23453, Apr. 20, 2022; 88 FR 5787, Jan. 30, 2023; 89 FR 4833, Jan. 25, 2024; 90 FR 6809, Jan. 21, 2025]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1983–2004 · leading case: Gibbs v. SLM Corp., 336 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Mass. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gibbs v. SLM Corp., 336 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Mass. 2004). “§§ 1070 (b), 1071, 1082, 1094; 34 C.F.R. §§ 668.84 -.98). Although the First Circuit has not addressed the issue, “nearly every court to consider the issue in the last twenty-five years has determined that there is no express or implied private right of action to enforce any of…”

Bartels v. Alabama Com. Coll., Inc., 918 F. Supp. 1565 (S.D. Ga. 1995). “13 Further, any implication of a private cause of action would frustrate the legislative scheme because it would interfere with the broad enforcement powers of the Secretary.”

White v. Apollo Grp., 241 F. Supp. 2d 710 (W.D. Tex. 2003). “Title IV of the Higher Education Act gives extensive enforcement authority to the Secretary indicating that Congress intended this mechanism to be the exclusive means for ensuring compliance with the statutes and regulations.”

Student Gov't Ass'n of Wilberforce Univ. v. Wilberforce Univ., 578 F. Supp. 935 (S.D. Ohio 1983). “Furthermore, reinstatement into the program is a matter within the Secretary’s discretion and the determinative factor in resuming funding is whether the institution has corrected its past violations not whether the rights of CWS students have been or are being adversely…”

Wiesenfelder v. Riley, 959 F. Supp. 532 (D.D.C. 1997). “” This is because educational institutions are made fully aware, by the regulations published by the Department in 34 C.”

USA Grp. Loan Servs., Inc. v. Riley, 82 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 1996). “34 C.F.R. §§ 668.84 (b), 668.88.92, 668.95, '682.”

L'ggrke v. Benkula, 966 F.2d 1346 (10th Cir. 1992). “If an institution violates a provision of Title IV, the Secretary has the authority to impose a fine on the institution, 34 C.F.R. § 668.84 (a); to suspend the eligibility of an institution to participate *1348 in any or all of the Title IV programs, 34 C.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.